Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)
Start a new discussion

User:Target for Today and category churning

Target for Today (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has created dozens of categories over the past few days, particularly relating to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the battle thereof. Almost all of these are headed to WP:CFD and there are numerous complaints on his talkpage about this, to no apparent avail. A block on page creation at least might be in order. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Mangoe for raising this. While a number of Target for Today's stub articles on Gettsburg have also been merged per discussions here andhere, and he has been the subject of some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_History#Gettysburg_articles, I'm not informed enough to express an opinion on the article side of things. However, his category work as revealed by the growing list of red links on his Talk page speaks for itself, I think. And now, I believe he's taken to essentially recreating deleted categories with slightly altered names, as I stated today at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:People_of_Adams_County.2C_Pennsylvania.2C_in_the_American_Civil_War and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Geography_of_Gettysburg.2C_Pennsylvania. This, I think, is the tipping point. He is clearly a knowledgable editor when it comes to Gettysburg and Gettyburg is an extremely important topic: but his trend of category re-creation tips the scales to where his work becomes more detrimental and WP:POINTy, and I support that he blocked from further category creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that there are, additionally, two more Target for Today Gettyburg-related WP:OC discussions underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_15, which do not appear on his user talk page. Also, the problem is not limited to Gettysburg: he has created a similar torrent of Cold War related categories and a templates, most or all of which have been deleted or are now nominated. So any topic ban should include Gettysburg and Cold War categories, or categories in general. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • ...and I've just had to nominate another, freshly created. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Which is in fact a duplicate of one he already created. Bizarre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
        • The editor may have believed that the new category was not an exact duplicate, as the battle itself was an event, while the battlefield is a location. Still a little hair-splitting to my mind. --NellieBly (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've now had to nominate another big subtree of these categories, and am looking at another, and there are a bunch of other nominations besides. He's quiet at the moment, but there's no reason to think he won't start up again. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban for Target for Today (talk · contribs) blocking them from the creation of categories/creation of new pages in categoryspace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Dealing with the categories created by this user is becoming a bit of a headache. Recently I came across Category:1995 in the Cold War, which when considered can kind of serve as a symbol of the kind of problems inherent in the categories that are being created. I'm not sure what the answer is here, but at least some sort of temporary topic ban on categories may be in order until the user can get the hang of how categories typically work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would definately support some kind of ban on this user. He seems to be going way overboard with category creation. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

► What does Category:1995 in the Cold War have to do with Target for Today, as an entirely different user (User:Hugo999) created that category], which is in a valid tree that predates (00:45, 26 December 2007‎) Target for Today's first edit by years. Target for Today (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I meant Category:1974 in the Cold War. Or was it Category:1947 in the Cold War? Category:1951 in the Cold War? You get the idea... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

►Splitting hairs? -- not in the least as the places are all very different. It appears you are mistaking Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and Adams County, Pennsylvania, with the Gettysburg Battlefield--all three are different geographical areas and have different categories with names that match. That's why there are three sets of categories for subtopics, e.g.;

Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures

Category:Buildings and structures in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

which are clearly not the same category. For the same reason it is not the same to have Category:Geography of… orCategory:People of,,, categories for each of the 3 different parent categories. To claim they are the same category (or are the same category as any other category) is not true in any way. And of course (despite the false rationalization against) both

Category:People of Adams County, Pennsylvania, in the American Civil War

Category:Geography of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

are by-definition valid subcategories of the trees with the parents

Category:People of Pennsylvania in the American Civil War

Category:Geography of Pennsylvania by city

that will have full populations when all the existing and future articles have been categorized to them. Target for Today (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Sorry, but I find all this AN/I "ban him now" behaviour quite intolerable. YES, there is an issue here, but it's not highly disruptive. NO, a topic ban is not the answer, and would be excessive. This "ban now, problem gone" attitude really doesn't do anyone any good, and is pretty immature IMO. I think at most a week or two is needed to restrict this editor from making new categories whilst someone mentors him in the basics. I do accept there is a minor problem, and that something needs to be done soon. I don't accept any form of ban, which is more punitive than anything, as a reasonable solution, without trying other things first and seeing if the editor can adapt. Wiki is supposed to be a community, so where he hell is the community spirit to help educate or advance editors working in good faith, who are apparently knowledgeable about a subject, which has been noted above, instead the typical over-reactive polemic shit that goes on here on AN/I way too much, just to satisfy a few egos but achieves nothing supportive for the editor in question? Who do we place first, the interests of Wiki, or the interests of people making complaints? In this case, I strongly believe this editor was trying work in the interests of Wiki and a topic they are clearly very enthusiastic about. I see no controversy here that poses a threat, I see nothing that can't be tidied up. All he needs is a helping a hand, a couple of weeks tuition, from experienced editors in categorisation methods and on what the standards are. I don't know what they are, sure I know the difference between a trivial and major category, but that's about it. Perhaps he doesn't. Clearly this editor needs similar knowledge to get him on the right track. So perhaps the good people here who are looking for a solution might do better by offering the editor some much needed guidance, before going like a pack of wolves after him. My 2c. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of "typical over-reactive polemic shit," one such good faith effort by admin Mike Selinker was met with a stream of vitriolic responses and personal attacks at XfD. There's a longer history here with Target for Today than one can glean from this discussion section here, Marcus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, now we're getting the full story? It helps to know these things from the tee, some of us don't want to go digging through an editor's entire history looking for background. Can you provide diffs on this? Although it sounds like reference to uncivil comments, which bears no relation to category creation, to me, unless there's material suggesting COI or similar. We need to see it to know, though, please. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Whether or not the behaviour has been highly disruptive is somewhat of a judgment call. For those who work heavily in the categorization system, I can appreciate the view that it has been highly disruptive. I know it has been fairly disruptive at CFD, what with the repeated discussions over the same things over and over again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Tricky to say. Categories are really just a wrapper for articles. Creating them isn't really disruptive. It's the process of discussing whether to keep/delete them that takes time. But then, who to blame, the creator of those categories, or the editor who nominates them for deletion. We can't say that it's highly disruptive, because nothing has been damaged, really. Only the extra work is disruptive, but if the editor really feels they are creating them in good faith, and not anticipating deletion noms, then it is unfair to be dismissive. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I disagree and think that creating categories can indeed be disruptive. Maybe it's not disruptive to you as an editor, but it certainly can be disruptive to WP in general. For instance, User:Pastorwayne was initially banned indefinitely from category creation essentially for disruptive creation of categories. Same story for other editors—it's not a unique phenomenon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Just a thought: Is Target for Today even aware they have a personal talk page? Since November 2010 they don't appear to have ever responded to anything on it. Seems odd, does it not? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, this is one odd character. Marcus, to respond to your request for diffs: you'd be particularly forgiven for not finding them yourself because the comments I'm referring to were made during a brief period when Target stopped editing under his ID and launched a series of personal attacks at XfDs for his creation using an IP. or so I believe. There's a clear pattern of Mike trying to reason with him and being met by personal attacks and incivility here here, here, often embedding personal attacks in the edit summary as well, when all Mike (who I have a lot of respect for) was trying to do was work the issue out. (Mike was so taken aback he opened an SPI that was declined, but a checkuserwould not have matched the IP to Target's account anyway.) I for one believe User:69.46.35.69 was clearly Target, or a meat or sock puppet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I find it kind of difficult to buy that the user would not have figured out his own user talk page yet, especially since the user has participated in CFDs, AFDs, sockpuppet investigations, "Wikipedia talk" space, and another user's talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed. And again, my !vote above was for a block on category creation only, for CfD-related reasons only, just as Good olfactory discusses. I simply don't see this editor as someone open to tutoring in the way Marcus suggests, but if he proves to be, and Marcus or someone might wish to take that on, with positive results, great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, as I said, I don't work categories myself to know what to teach. Nor would I have the time or patience. Given the lack of SPI matching this IP to TfT, I won't comment on whether I think this is him or his behaviour, that would best be left to an admin. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've checked his contributions, and there are a few, a very talk messages from him, so one has to assume that he knows about doing that. Of course, unless there's some setting that prevents it, he should be getting notifications of the fifty-odd updates to his own talk page each time he views a Wikipedia page while he's logged in. It's hard not to conclude that he has decided not to bother with that. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinion as to whether a topic ban is appropriate for such a string of ill-conceived categories. I would very much like to see Target for Today's (and, if any of the other accounts are his sockpuppets, those accounts') personal attacks on me cease. As far as I can tell, they have ceased for the time being. I have found his behavior and those of the other accounts to be chilling on my desire to close the nominations of the Gettysburg categories, because getting a constant stream of vitriol and accusations doesn't make me want to participate. That said, I probably will still do so, since I try not to let personal feelings get in the way of continuing to help out on CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support a ban on all edits in category space. I have thought for some years that some extra sign of competence should be displayed before people are allowed to create categories. I can create a plausible but useless category in a few seconds and the cfd process takes weeks to uproot it. Eg Target created 8 new categories on 16 Jan and 6 are already at cfd. This is just a waste of time. Oculi (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This history is older. There are problems as far back as November at least. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)Yea, I got a notice on my talk page since I have nominated a few of this users category creations. While some categories that I have looked at appear to be OK, the vast majority seem to be ill conceived. So I would be inclined to support a creation ban of some kind. While the current uproar is over categories, has anyone looked at the article creation record? From my browsing of the history, I suspect that a few of these articles will also be suspect. Category creation is very fast and simple. Category deletion/merging/renaming is time consuming and requires an administrators time. Given the backlogs at CfD and other places, adding more work for admins should be discouraged. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have looked over the articles somewhat. There's been a lot of AfDs for his Gettysburg geo or structure stubs, most of which seem to be getting merged into larger articles. (A merge tag or just boldly going ahead with it would be my preferred course, if possible.) For example, 11th Mississippi Infantry Monument is an article about a block with a plaque, for heaven's sake. Imagine how much more useful it would be for readers if this were integrated into, say, High-water mark of the Confederacy. That's the biggest knock against Target with articles imo: he applies his knowledge to spinning off a myriad of stubs on every ridge, brook, tree, etc. in Gettysburg, it seems, instead of offering readers an integral picture. As with categories, one gets the sense that he is not really considering the best interests of the encyclopaedia or its readers, but rather, some private fascination with his own ordering of things.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree, somewhat. I get the feeling he is using categories more like an "index", expecting readers to view articles in a logical order based on how they are sectioned. The logic makes sense, in a detailed book you would expect to find an index, chapters, sections, headings, but it is not how Wiki works. As I said earlier, the fact that he can create articles quickly but it takes weeks to remove them is not necessarily his fault, but that of the red-tape which Wiki operates behind. I still think you're looking to point fault at the editor here, and it comes across as demeaning rather than AGF. There have been plenty of chances for editors to be WP:BOLD and to merge stubs, request speedy deletion of superfluous categories, etc. A will also note that in some of the CfDs people have voted "keep", so I should caution that the comments made here on AN/I are not entirely supported by everyone. Also, until he responds here, assuming he does (I have left a somewhat frank comment on his talkpage), people should not be speculation too much in his "motivations". Again, AGF, he has done nothing that warrants being shamed, and just because the excess of categories has upset a few editors, we don't make pointy accusations or pre-judgements. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • That's good advice and I'll remember it. So let me just say, less dramatically: no, I don't think any action is required for the stub articles, all of which can and should be dealt with easily via Template:Merge or just boldly doing it; AfD has been overused in this case, imo. His categories -- which are often duplicates, empty or nearly so, recreated against community consensus, and time consuming to repeatedly remove -- are a different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• I think we are starting to exhaust the possibilities of discussion here, absent contribution from the subject of the report. And that's really where I'm coming from. If he's willing to talk to us, to take direction, to at least communicate, we can work with that. He hasn't been on in several days, so it's also possible he has gone off in a huff. The thing is that if he returns, and ignores all this, and starts recreating this stuff, or picks another subject for the same treatment, we are going to go around this all again; I think at this point he has some obligation to explain himself, get direction, something before he resumes editing. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes.. before we accuse someone of "going off in a huff", let's read [1] where he states "I use Waypoint at a coffee shop where I'm at now and I get here once or twice every week or so (I don't have home internet access)". The problem I see is that he does not respond to his talkpage messages, despite a large number of notifications about things, so he could just as easily ignore the AN/I one, not bother to search the archives for it, if he doesn't login for days, and continue as before, ignorant of the concerns raised (whether intentional or not) which he has made clear he is aware of "Shouldn't someone have posted a notice for me? I didn't get informed of this allegation at my talk page", in the SPI comment [2]. That would mean a block is in order, but again, given his random e-café access, we could block him for, say 24–72 hours and he could totally miss it by not visiting the e-café during the block period. Any longer block would be questionable, and I don't think we do a "you're blocked until you read and respond to this AN/I discussion" hostage-style block. Which makes this editor very hard to communicate with. He doesn't appear to have made "email me" available either, so that someone might try to gain his attention. Hard work, this one. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Blocks are meant to do one thing, to prevent disruption. If a block is unlikely to affect an editor then it is of insufficient length. If (for example) an editor seems to edit once a week, then it isn't out of line to block an editor for a week for a first offense after sufficient warnings. We aren't restricted to a rule for a set block length for particular offenses, and administrators are given leave to use their judgement when determining what is an appropriate block length. So I don't think it should be considered out of line to block someone longer than usual because a shorter block won't even be noticed. -- Atama頭 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you seem to have missed the point. I'm not saying we need to block him for disruption, because I don't feel he has been that disruptive. I'm saying, we need him to respond to the concerns and engage with people, here or on his talk page. If he continues to ignore the notifications being left, I see no other way of getting him to respond, except by imposing a block and making his talk page the only place he can discuss this problem. But I also see a problem in blocking an editor simply to gain and hold his attention.. seems a bit dramatic. You get my point? The issue was the category creation, now the issue is getting him to acknowledge it and accept that he is not doing things agreeably, and needs to change his approach. I don't see need to topic ban anyone if they can accept they were at fault and refrain from doing it again. The discussion above requests a topic ban as though this guy has done something wrong. But given his lack of response, we can only assume he isn't aware that he is going over the top. What are we really going to do.. topic ban a guy for being enthusiastic? Seems rather draconian. We need him to speak to us, and see if he's willing to back off from over-categorising. If he persists after that, then we have a problem. Editing is like having a driving licence – you get points for speeding before you get a ban, unless it's severe. This is not that severe, and he has not had his say. So it's really just a 1-sided issue from those after his neck. People need to calm down and play fair, it's just a fricking website and a few extra categories aren't going to kill anyone or fry Wiki's servers. Patience is a virtue, sometimes. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 22:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, Marcus, I've never seen you at CfD, and I don't think you have any idea of how much otherwise productive time and energy is wasted by editors who serially create pointless categorization schemes. The are editors on this page, like me, who have done the clean up work. And I have spent many weeks, even months, working with these other editors to get bad categorization schemes cleared up. So on this one point, I disagree strongly with what you're saying. You haven't done the work; you don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I think you're over-complicating the matter, and I doubt it's that complex. I see no point in claiming that his contribs make your job harder, when the truth is that the CfD process itself is at fault. I think there has been ample room for merges, speedy deletions, and such if someone had been bold enough to do the merges, flag the empty cats, and be done with it, and not bother with all these nominations. No point blaming an editor working in what they believe is good faith for an inhibiting process they didn't develop. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
            • You can't merge categories without the whole time-consuming CfD process. It doesn't work that way. There is no speedy shortcut. I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to continue this exchange, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Facepalm I know exactly what I'm taking about, clearly you don't, or I was unclear. I didn't say "merge categories", did I? I was referring to boldly merging the list of trivial stubs that Wild Wolf listed on AfD into the main articles on Gettysburg's battle/battlefield then redirecting them to those parent articles to make them searchable. That would have effectively rendered the categories on insignificant trees and rivers, etc in those stubs redundant, and probably empty if excluded from the main article. Empty categories can be speedy deleted under C1 Unpopulated categories. That would have left relatively few for CfD to worry about. So say again, who doesn't know what they're talking about? The fact remains, this whole clean up process has been handled quite poorly, with a lack of bold initiative, and now people are looking to point blame out of all proportion. It's contemptible. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Removing articles from categories rendering them empty is not in accordance with due process. There is no quick bold officially sanctioned way of deleting a category. In any case redirects can and should still be categorised: a redirect to a section about a bridge should be categorised as a bridge. Oculi (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages begins, "Most redirects should not be categorized" and stipulates a few exceptions. In the case of these Gettysburg articles those don't apply, as many of the stubs are neither "well known" nor "alternative names", they are simply very trivial mentions of things and redirecting/uncategorising them as such is unlikely to prove as troublesome as CfD. Seems well within the guidelines to me, and any bold editor would have made sense to me if they'd done it that way. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, instituting a block may be the only way to start a discussion with him. I have been watching this unfold and I haven't seen Target for Today replying to any of the messages on his talk page or on any of the deletion discussions. A temporary bloc might get his attention. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• MarcusBritish, this admin certainly does "blocked until you get your ass over to your talkpage" blocks - communication is key to this project. Also, creating duff categories is hugely disruptive, I had enough of it with a certain previous user that ended up indef blocked. It's like putting library books back on the wrong shelves. He hasn't edited since the 16th, and he has one of Marcus's helpful comments on the page as well as the deletion notices etc, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - he may be at his sister's wedding or in bed with the flu. However, if he edits anywhere again without responding to the issue at hand, give me a shout and I will block him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's fair enough. His categories are not "duff" or "misplaced", by the way, that would be an unfair analysis. These are more like a bunch of flimsy pamphlets being shelved between major volumes. He's not creating hoaxes or forks, just over-doing it somewhat. Perhaps he isn't aware that it's not a welcome method, yet. So let's drop any idle speculation and wait and see.. even I'm not hazarding a guess here, as I think his level of interest could prove valuable to American Civil War topics for Military History, if and when he learns to follow the guidelines more closely. Too many keen editors are driven off for making simple mistakes, and too many simple mistakes are blown out of proportion on AN/I. Topic bans are for belligerent or unashamedly disruptive editors, we'll just have to see if he is one of those when he responds. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I should note that I have been working my way through all of this editor's category creations. While most recommendations to delete or merge are gaining consensus, there are are few exceptions. I'm not bothered if there is consensus to keep something I'm recommending for deletion or merging. But bringing these to a discussion is resulting in some being kept with help from the community to fix the issues that I see. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I recommended keeping one category, but in doing so I actually looked through some of the links in the article and found other buildings of the same ilk. But they weren't in Gettysburg, so apparently it wasn't worth the trouble or some other such reason that he didn't categorize them. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of Target's category creations are perfectly OK. A majority are both duff and misplaced, as can be seen from User talk:Target for Today which sparkles with red-linked categories. All but a couple which have been at cfd since Oct 2011 are now red-linked and I expect a lot more will be red when open cfds are closed. (Deleted category creations do not appear in an editor's contributions.) Target has been creating categories since 2010 - this is not a novice making naive blunders but an editor paying no attention over a long period to consensus and policy (not to mention a failure to review existing categories, eg creating Category:Armories on 24/01/2001 when there was already Category:Armouries created Dec 09). Moreover it looks to me as if their first ever edit was the creation of Category:World War II air force films (misplaced as there is no Category:Air force films as opposed to Category:Aviation films) promptly renamed at cfd in Nov 2011. A new editor does not begin with a category creation, so Target is quite a veteran. Oculi (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

►Wait a minute--I couldn't create articles prior to creating my Target for Today account, and all my prior edits were without an account! Two years ago I simply saw that the WWII film categories were overpopulated with air force films and saw that there was a category Category:World War II navy films--which still exists! So to create Category:World War II air force films which was a valid sibling, I thought it would be a good opportunity to try my hand at finally creating a page using the navy code. But when I copied the code from Category:World War II navy films and adjusted it for "air force", I couldn't then paste it to a new page until I created an account. So of course it was my first edit as I didn't have any experience creating pages -- I couldn't because I didn't have an account to use!!! Target for Today (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• He's back editing, including category creation. On a related note, he's reverted my edit here, with Target insisting that his administration category Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting/Gettysburg be categorized as part of the content tree. Contrary to WP:PROJCATS, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• [3] Refusing to take notice of the views of other reasonable editors is pretty much always disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Target for Today claims that creating seperate categories for the geographies of Gettysburg, Gettysburg Battlefield, and Adams County is not splitting hairs, which I would dispute. Gettysburg IS part of Adams County, and considering that there are only two articles in the Gettysburg cat and eight in the Adams County cat, having ten articles in a single category can't be that unwiedly. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as he's discussing it, not dashing out and creating ten more categories that are just going to be deleted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He is dashing out and creating more that will be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Really, this has got to stop. He's creating a bunch more categories, very similar to the type already created that have been deleted. The user either needs to slow down and discuss this or we need some sort of ban on category creation. Can we resolve this? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The article creation is out of hand too. It is easy to find "sources" for almost anything about any Gettysburg facility, monument, creek, crossroads, anything, since the various newspapers in the area, for whatever reason, are all available on-line back well into the 1800s. So for instance (and there are many of these, this was just one created today) we now have Springs Hotel and Horse Railroad created entirely from old newspaper columns; the references are close to the size of the article text. Keeping up with all these— are they notable, can they be combined with some other article, are they being used as the basis for another outburst of category creation— is eating up a lot of time; I am clearly not the only person who is going over his contributions. And the madness is spreading to other subject areas, as he has created a bunch of separate articles on Nike Hercules installations (even though they are all essentially identical) and creating whole "Cold War" category structures on top of that. It's obvious that he can create a decent article, but he really needs to take some direction from other people in using his powers for good. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You're right, it is getting bad. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. So everyone who has commented save one user has been in favour of something being done to either temporarily or indefinitely stop the user from creating new content. This shouldn't have to drag on much longer, so can someone less involved close this discussion with some sort of resolution? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – despite my having laid down a lot of AFG and fighting off the mob here to await TTTs response, I'm very disappointed. TTT seems to have come online, pissed about with categories for 3 hours, then responded to AN/I without really giving the matter or concerns any direct consideration. Despite a big orange "you have messages" banner, and notices all over his talk page, I don't think we can take this "I'll get round to you in my time" attitude, when this AN/I thread has spend days discussing this. Motion for admin to give TTT a severe warning to TTT advising that he discuss the category creation concerns, not past trivialities. If that fails, go for the topic ban until he does play ball. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I feel that TTT already has been warned, many times, about this; giving him yet another warning may or may not do much good. At any rate, I'd say something also has to be done about the dozens of articles he has been creating about the Gettysburg Battlefield, most of which are little more than notices that the place exists (see for example Spangler's Spring, Willoughby Run, and Blocher's Run), while other places which are marginally more informative, like Wheatfield Road, fail to explain why this battlefield feature deserves to have its own article. He has also forked the attacks of individual divisions from the Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Lately, he seems to be creating articles on each of the monuments on the battlefield (see Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments). This looks to me like an attempt to cover every possible detail about the battlefield.

I (and others) have alreadly nominated several of his articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cope Truss, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Bryan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excelsior Field, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blocher's Run, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson's assault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McLaws' Assault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson's assault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawford's charge). I am asking anyone who agrees with me on this to please vote and/or comment on these pages. I am planning to nominate the articles in the memorials and monuments category for deletion on Tuesday morning; if anyone thinks additional articles from the Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should be deleted as well, perhaps we could nominate these articles as a group.

One last thing: as a consequence of this, perhaps we should establish some notability guidelines for places (similar to the guidelins found here), which hopefully will help solve some of these problems in the future. Wild Wolf (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wild Wolf, see the top of Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) as to why they don't exist at the moment. Consensus, or lack of, doesn't always go against editors, but against safeguarding Wiki too, and results in dragging people down due to lack of guidelines/policy. Where there are much needed missing policies, and consensus failed to provide a solution, there is a lack of sense and we have no one to blame but the detrimental people who made it impossible for a consensus to be formed at the time, whether that's fair or not. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Wild Wolf, you may wish to review WP:CANVASS; exhorting "anyone who agrees with me on this" to go to debates and !vote a particular way is bad form, and likely a violation of policy. State how you feel all you like, but the instant you try to get editors to participate (and do so only for a subset that feels a certain way), it's a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Very, very sorry about the canvassing. My intention was to encourage other editors to get involved in the process. This was a poor choice of words on my part. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• For my part, I dropped in when I saw that Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting/Gettysburg was part of Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation), a tracking category for AFD debates (and not categories, articles, or the like). The same category was also placed on an article and its associated Deletion Debate (here for the article and here for the debate). Now you'll also note here that he's essentially using a hardcoded version of the recently deleted {{rescue}}, which may or may not be problematic. I don't know that a block is warranted, if he's discussing matters - but he absolutely needs to stop creating categories and engage in discussion about these issues. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• If they are commenting here but ignoring the issues raised, is that really discussing? Does that merit taking a community block off the table? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a very clear consensus here for a block, and as such I have blocked Target for Today indefinitely. Note that I very intentionally mean indefinite, and very much do not mean infinite. If Target for Today would simply start talking instead of barreling ahead, and actually address the concerns of people here and at CSD, there is a reasonable chance that this editor could remain a part of the community. But since the editor showed us today that they are fully aware of the discussion yet are not only choosing to ignore the substance of it but also to go ahead with the disputed creation anyway, I don't see any way other than a block to stop the drain on community resources caused by the disruptive category creation. I'm not going to close this section myself, as I'm willing to hear the input of other editors (or trouts, if you prefer). Additionally, people may wish to propose unblock conditions, though it may simply be easier to wait and see if some other response is forthcoming. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible limit to category creation block?

CfD seemed to me to be the primary concern of most commenters, here, so I'm a bit surprised to see that the block includes article creation, too. I thank Qwyrxian and everyone for their participation, but I must ask, at the risk of exhausting people's patience, if there's significant support for limiting this block to category creation? While TfT seems to be equally non-responsive to discussing his articles, those articles, in themselves, aren't problematic in the way the categories have been, seems to me. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have originally agreed with you on this, but especially given activity over the past weekend and a look at some of the larger categories he's created, it seems to me that there is also a problem with him fragmenting articles (e.g. the urge to make a separate article on every little movement/attack in the larger Battle of Gettysburg, most of which require the context of the battle as a whole to be understood). I think he needs to talk to others about this too. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, and the lack of any comments in support of my own suggests that the community agrees with you, and is satisfied with the action taken, at least for now. If that remains so, this lengthy discussion should probably be marked as resolved and archived, imho. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was that before we can consider any editing restrictions like a topic ban, first the user has to show that they're capable of and willing to listen and collaborate. Should xe give such assurances, I think that discussing lighter approaches is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I find that typically when I or other users find themselves in this type of situation, we just want the problem to go away. We try to come up with the fairest way of fixing the problem, but if it goes away because of some more extreme action that is taken, we are just as happy. Most users are probably just happy the category creation by TfT has stopped. They may not realize he was indefinitely blocked. I'm happy the problem has been dealt with, but I am wondering if an indefinite block is too much. I can support what was done, so long as the block is lifted relatively easily once TfT expresses some desire to work with others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of primary and questionable sources

I find myself engaged in somewhat of an slow-motion edit war with user Wee Curry Monster talk at Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. There are severe problems with the edit he tries to impose, which is:

"The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Luis Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo, where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers."

While it adds more detail to the article, compared to current version, it presents the disagreement based on WP:PRIMARY sources, as rightly noted by Senra (Talk) (and agreed by Nev1 (talk)) in this talk page section.

I take a pause here to state that I've learned a while ago to not to respond to WCM's personal attacks. He calls me "a disruptive editor", so he usually focus on me instead of the issue. And I've learned that going that way (commenting about editors) is fruitless and poisoning.

As a result from Senra's advice, we started gathering secondary sources at the end of that section. While it was easy to find secondary sources stating that looting and destruction of private buildings occurred (one of them even explicitly saying "There seems to be no substantial controversy over the basic facts of the intervention, although President Jackson transformed them substantially in his Annual Message to Congress"), sources presented by WCM are questionable because:

[I'm not going into this discussion because it's not relevant at this point]

Even if he would have succeed in providing secondary, reliable sources explicitly stating that the civilians were not affected by the incursion, he is still pushing for his original text, which presents the primary sources' versions. I've reverted him three times now, in the last 30 days, and he seems to neglect the concerns raised about the use of WP:PRIMARY sources. What I'd wish from this petition here is that WCM acknowledges that article content cannot be based on primary sources (specially in contentious matters), and desists from introducing the text above. I apologize beforehand if this is not the place to seek for help, as I'm (relatively speaking) new to Wikipedia and this kind of conflicts. --Langus (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty basic: between a primary source and a secondary source covering that primary, always prefer the secondary. Contrasting a primary against a secondary is essentially OR, unless there's a secondary detailing the differences between the primary and other secondaries. Otherwise, the contrast has to be made and argued by the editor. We can't do that. It's like the police report says one thing, and we see something else in the evidence. Unfortunately, we're not the detectives, so nothing we can say is admissible to the court. To stretch a metaphor. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Several years ago, I noticed this was a serious problem with many GA and even FA-class articles. If someone wants to put together an investigative committee to look into this problem, I might be interested in helping out. Although I can't remember the name of it at this time, there was a FA-class anime-related article that was written from primary sources with little guidance from the secondary. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

As stated by the OP, around two months ago I did indeed attempt to mediate this long running content dispute by pointing out to the primary editors the difficulties of using primary sources. I thought the issues had settled down. It seems they are continuing. I note that Tatham's dictionary of Falklands Biography has come up again; I recommend that this source should be taken to the WP:RSN to obtain a consensus on its reliability. I also note that Mabuska (talk · contribs) is a recent editor of the article who has not been informed of this incident post; I have taken the liberty of doing so --Senra (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Tatham's dictionary of Falklands Biography has been at WP:RSN in this thread. Reading that thread now, the RS nature of that source does seem to have been obfuscated and it was not the primary reason for that RSN post. I recommend it is taken there again --Senra (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know why i am mentioned at all in regards to this. I've only made one edit to the article (and none in the talk) and that was a good faith edit in regards to the use of a non-English language name in brackets in an article where it seems totally out of place considering this is the English Wikipedia and the place name in use is officially in English. Please don't drag uninvolved editors into this source discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Mabuska: I only included you for completeness as you have edited recently and thought you might be interested. No matter and sorry to bother you --Senra (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not so much a content dispute as Langus trying to game the system to remove some content he doesn't like. As part of Argentina's claim to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, it claims that in 1831, the USS Lexington destroyed the settlement formed by Luis Vernet at Port Louis. The sources actually conflict on this, Vernet claims the entire settlement was destroyed, the US record from the log of the Lexington states that guns were spiked and a powder store destroyed. Langus wishes to remove the latter from the article substituting it with additional content from sources backing up the Argentine version of events. WP:NPOV requires we represent all significant viewpoints in the article. I'm sorry to bring content to ANI but its only by explaining the facts around content does it become clear that there is a POV agenda here. The material is sourced, the sources are not questionable, the sources used are not being used to source controversial or disputed material. These are red herrings to cover up a POV agenda. The source he is disputing was written by Professor John B Hattendof D Phil FRHist S., at the time of publication the Ernest J King Professor of Maritime history, US Naval War College. He is claiming this is unreliable and questionable. Tatham is not being used to cite a controversial or dispited fact. The text is in fact lifted from another wikipedia article - Falkland Islands.

Langus is disruptive, this is the second time he has dragged me to WP:ANI over a content dispute [4], he see WP:DR as a means to filibuster discussions till he gets the exact content he desires and his content proposals favour Argentina's sovereignty claim over the islands. [5] you'll note that he has changed the article to his favoured version and the information from the log of the Lexington removed, the article totally favouring the Argentine version of events. So he reverts then comes to ANI trying to game the system into keeping his preferred text. You'll also note my last edit was nearly two weeks ago, this was a stale issue. Langus has not commented in talk since 26 November 2011.

Its not as if this is the only article he has behaved disruptively on Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands,Luis Vernet,Falklands War,ARA General Belgrano,Falkland Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute . As I note here [6] the contribution history is odd, with an account registered in 2007 making no substantive contribution till 2011. I think this is a sleeper account for the blocked disruptive editor User:Alex79818, who co-incidentally decided to restart his disruptive IP edits on Falklands topics this weekend. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the use of primary sources; it's in interpreting primary sources, or using them for value judgements ("best", "greatest", etc.) that we run into trouble. In this case, where Argentinean sources, which are secondary sources, state one thing, and American, primary sources, another, removing the primary sources "because they're not secondary sources" reduces the article to a non-neutral state. That said, I'd presume there'd have to be some sort of secondary source mentioning the Lexington's account of the affair, doesn't there? But until it's found there's no reason to remove the information from the article "just because it's a primary source". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bushranger. The bolded sentence above seems to be a fairly simple statement of facts, is there any particular interpretation of it that WCM is making Langus? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Bushranger. If there is not a secondary claiming the information in the primary, how would one judge the reliability of the primary, or its importance in a POV? Surely there's a secondary. Also agree with Chimpmunkdavis that it is a fairly simple statement of facts, and want to know Langus' problem with the statement more specifically. That he hasn't commented in the talk page of that article is distressing. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Comment below makes a better point. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The use of primary sources in historical articles does not fly, see WP:HISTRS, and the repeated rejection of primaries for historical articles at WP:RS/N Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And again WCM has slung accusations all over the place, effectively shifting the focus of this matter to a person (me). I'll say this again: if I'm really the 'monster' you say I am, then what are you waiting for to open a RfC on me?? Or maybe a new SPI? Anyone can see that verbose Alex79818 and me have two very different writing styles, yet you still insist with this.

I brought this here because, as I said, there's a slow edit war going on. Bushranger, have you read the talk page? These are not "Argentinean sources": Barry M. Gough,[7] Lowell S. Gustafson,[8] Harold F. Peterson,[9] etc.; every source I could find (secondary sources) adhere to Vernet's version, which is that the settlement was pillaged. The only secondary source presented by WCM that depicts the Lexington 's version is former governor of the Falklands David Tatham, in his Dictionary of Falklands Biography which was already taken to WP:RSN and its use was discouraged in contentious matters. Chipmunkdavis, if we present a disagreement of primary sources, when secondary sources largely agree that only one of them is true, then we're giving too much WP:WEIGHT to a WP:FRINGE theory, effectively failing WP:NPOV guidelines. Please note that I'm not saying that there is no support for the Lexington version, but so far WCM hasn't presented evidence of this. That he previously included that text in another WP article (Falkland Islands) is no reason to automatically spread it across the whole site.

@Xavexgoem: why do you say I didn't comment in the Talk page??? Don't believe everything you hear... Talk:Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falkland_Islands#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources -> Ctrl+F -> Langus <enter>

Also note that I'm not removing content, it's WCM who wants to add it. --Langus (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it an interesting fact in itself that the Lexington's log underreported the situation. Regarding the edit war, hopefully it has now stopped with the tag. If the original version is the one without, then yes, per WP:BRD spirit it should stay there till talkpage discussion ends (now it has started). Your interpretation of the primary conflict agrees with mine. I suggest you both trout yourselves for the slow edit war without talkpage, without WP:3O, etc, and follow DR now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BRD I should be reverting Langus for him to start the Discussion, the text was there unchallenged for 2 weeks, its been in the Falkland Islands far longer and was the subject of an RFC in June 2011, that rejected Langus' claims. He is raising the same issue, repeatedly on multiple articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Content has been there without challenge for 2 weeks, it has been on Falkland Islands for far longer. By any convention on wikipedia there is a consensus for its inclusion. This has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT its about WP:NPOV and an editor seeking to re-inforce an Argentine position rather than presenting all opinions in the literature. As I point out in the talk page, I have access to the sources quoted above and Langus is misleading by omission. Several of the sources quoted present both opinions, eg Gustafson, but he presents a selective quotation from that source to support only one side of events.

The Log of a US warship and a respected US historian are definitely not WP:FRINGE sources. He is removing content, he is vetoing inclusion of the US version of events.

He doesn't answer the point he has not commented in talk since 26 November; pointedly he tries to obfuscate the fact. And again he doesn't respond in the talk page. The most specious of arguments is that consensus text conforming to WP:V and WP:RS can't be moved from one article to another. He is being disruptive, one only has to look at his contribution history to see that, as he instigates conflict on every article he edits. WP:BOOMERANG is clearly in effect. The same thing that happened when he attempted to remove the same content on Falkland Islands with an RFC [10] that was unsuccessful. This is an issue that was already raised and settled. I just want to quote one comment in that RFC:

“ Langus' behavior is a bit unsettling and reverting cited edits without rationale certainly does not create an atmosphere where an RFC can function properly. I'm not privy to Falkland disputes and don't have a vested interest in the topic but reading through Curry's edits it seems his contributions are fair and meticulously sorted. Informal mediation is probably a better route to solve this dispute because an RFC will get you nowhere at this point IMO. ”

And he is raising exactly the same points again on another article, he reprises the same argument time and time again. This is the very epitomy of disruptive and tendentious editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

False: the text was introduced in the article for the first time almost three months ago as you can see here. Then you waited for a month and pushed for it again. Since then I've been reverting you, and if I didn't have the time to seek for help in the last 2 weeks that doesn't mean that you have 'won' consensus. It doesn't matter if the text was on another article for 1, 3 or 7 years, because that same time the original text remained unchallenged in the real article in question, which is Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands; that is the consensus to which WP:BRD refers to. And it doesn't matter because if we discover an error in an article we must be capable of correcting it, even if it sat there for years.

"He has not commented in talk since 26 November": maybe because no one else did? I'm right there now.

"This is an issue that was already raised and settled": false, this is the first time that concern has been raised about the validity of that primary source.

"And he is raising exactly the same points again on another article": which one??

You know what is disruptive? You attacking me on every page, as you do here, here and here, instead of addressing the WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR concerns raised originally by uninvolved editors. --Langus (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See Falkland Islands#History to 1982 where I copied the text from. See also Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 12#RfC: USS Lexington paragraph. It should be one of the best sentences in wikipedia with every single word being scrutinised as it has. The text was agreed in June 2011 as a result of the RFC started by Langus. He is claiming my comments are false, the written record shows they are not.

He wishes to reprise the discussion and go over every word again, with the same piece of text on Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. Is that by the very definition of the word tendentious? Calling tendentious conduct tendentious, highlighting a failure to use WP:TALK and now he claims that "It's not enough to be present in the literature" regarding content.

As I pointed out earlier, this was a stale issue, with the article stable for nearly 2 weeks. He reverted and ran straight to ANI, this is clearly gaming the system and tendentious conduct. Its the second time I've been dragged to ANI by Langus. Could someone please close this drama fest? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you can have the last word. Next time I'll just request wikiquette assistance in the very moment you start the defamation process. --Langus (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hang on... if you copied the text from Falkland Islands#History to 1982, did you give proper attribution? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did but your point is? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've blocked Dream Focus for one week for WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct, specifically [11] and [12]. My detailed message to him is here. I am submitting my block for the community's review, and will not object if a consensus is reached to shorten or overturn the block. Jclemens (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block, though I wouldn't be adverse to it be shortened to a couple or few days as I think it would serve the same purpose. Wikipedia is supposed to a collegial editing environment; throwing tantrums and separating editors into collectives such as "inclusionist" and "deletionist" does nothing to further this goal. The emotional tone in DF's posts demonstrate that they are attached to the issue to the extent that they are unable to edit objectively. There is no excuse to resort to personal attacks, even if they are not directed to a specific editor. Sometimes things don't go the way you think is ideal on WP - when that happens you move on and dedicate your energy elsewhere rather than make passive aggressive talk posts. N^oformation ^Talk 10:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dream clearly seems to be harbouring resentment at the template's deletion; the block is a preventative measure in order to stop further disruption. Hopefully, the block is adequate time for him to reevaluate his role within the project. —Dark 10:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit much just to block him for the "evil hordes of deletionists" rhetoric. Given the whole debate over the ARS template one would kind of have to expect some post-deletion ranting. 28bytes (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sure the block is for long-term battlefield conduct, rather than just the one comment. —Dark 10:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, doing back through their talk page history I'd be willing to advocate an indef until they agreed to stop labeling "deletionists" as evil. Seriously, it's ridiculous. WP:AGF is supposed to be one of our pillars, not a negotiable guideline, but this user has essentially been working under the assumption that those who think WP should exclude poorly sourced content are evil. It comes down to a difference in how people view the wiki, but in no way does evil ever enter into the equation. 28bytes, if this was isolated to after the template debate it would be one thing, but this user has used the evil terminology well before that. It's totally unacceptable and honestly a little obsessive and creepy. N^oformation ^Talk 10:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, with edit summaries like this it just seems too cartoonish and over-the-top for me to take it too seriously. 28bytes (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF isn't a WP:5P, never was, hopefully never will be. You can't demand how people think, that's akin to brain-washing. It's an abstract guideline, and only bears minor relevance to civility. But AGF isn't being civil, in itself, and doesn't represent how the world truly operates. Interesting that {{rescue}} is gone, however. Sounds to me that whilst SOPA fails in the real world, and Wiki are happy to let a measly 1,800 votes count as a consensus for 10-million members, it remains a law unto itself and allows personal distaste to override a WikiProject operating under the same "AGF" being quoted here. I fail to see the NPOV when AfD allows for someone to nominate "delete" but nothing is retained to attempt to "keep". ARS have done good work in the past; I'm not entirely on their side, I will note, they often pick up some obviously trivial crap, that even a basic Google search can discredit, and the AfD becomes more like everyone involved being dragged through glass.. naked.. no one comes out unscathed. Dream does need to chill a little, I can understand their concern, though the block seems combative per se, almost counter-pointy. Nothing here that couldn't have been actioned through discussion, and comes across more like a show of power against strong words, to oppress Dream's discontent. Not a good block, really, though possibly a necessary one to prevent widespread disruption, so the better of two evils, but an example of how power corrupts, none the less. In short, shit happens. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 11:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

AGF isn't a pillar on its own but WP:CIVIL is and that definitely applies here, also on the 5P page it does mention that AGF is an essential part of civility. I'm just trying to point out its relevance here, I assume that is what Noformation was referring to above. -- Atama頭 23:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF on Wiki is abstract or written by a liberalist. Anyone who tried to apply that ofrm of AGF in real-life, 24/7, would soon find themselves considered mentally-ill. AGF is like "trust", you can either extend it freely, or you don't and it has to be warranted. I don't buy into the brain-washing method some editors often apply to AGF to make us all sheep, and I see plenty of other editors who openly admit to not extending AGF in part, on in full, a lot of the time, because the situation has to warrant it, not the guideline. In relation to this matter, I do not think DF extends AGF to all "deletionists" because he feels there is a motive behind their attitude, e.g. IJDLI. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a huge part of academia and people are expected to act with that sort of decorum when discussing all topics, no matter how sensitive, and they do. I spend most of my time in this bubble so that is how I act, irl, and that is how I'm used to being treated - there's no sense in taking anything personally when it comes to ideas. I wasn't around when WP:AGF became a policy but I wouldn't be surprised if it traced its roots to academic discourse. Above I meant to write "policy" not "pillar". N^oformation ^Talk 06:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Too strong a remedy for a bit of venting on the user's own talk and ARS talk pages. Did anyone attempt something simpler like "Please stop calling deletionists evil"? Nobody Ent 11:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Was there a warning that I have not yet seen? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not something that just popped up after after the rescue template deletion. This comment referring to participants in an AFD as "mindless deletionist drones" was made on my talk page before the template in question was nominated for deletion. This is not a short term rant but a long term attitude. The irony here is that I agree with many of the things he says in principle but I do not support the broad villianization of those with an opposing position. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a week? If we'd made it a two week block we could have had time to MfD his user page and AfD all his articles, like evil, scheming deletionists should. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block. I do like some of the work Dream Focus does, but he needs to realize that while Us and Them makes for a great song, it's an extremely divisive and unhelpful way to edit here. He's entitled to his view of what Wikipedia should be, but really has to express it in a manner more suitable for collaboration. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this was a really necessary block. I've seen much worse venting recently, including legal threats that didn't result in a block. Reduce to 24hrs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• As a card-carrying member of the "evil deletionist horde" (we prefer "Legion of Doom" BTW), I have to say I agree with 28bytes. Edit summaries like "civilization is doomed" are way too silly and over-the-top, even for Dream Focus. He seems to have gradually devolved into a Poe's law parody of himself. Reyk _YO! 12:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• • When I occasionally get sarcastic about the whole deletionist/inclusionist thing, I use the term heel for the "deletionists". (and of course face for the "inclusionists"). Example, a withdrawn AFD nomination or a struck delete !vote is a "heel-face turn" :). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'd have indefed him years ago if it weren't that by virtue of WP:INVOLVED I'm essentially forbidden to take action. This isn't an isolated incident. Dream Focus views this as a war, and strongly contributes to the truly unpleasant mess that AFD has become.—Kww(talk) 12:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

per 28bytes, Nobody Ent, and several others above. Seems rather harsh considering they don't even have some huge massive block history (2 previous way back in 2009). I'm not real keen on the whole concept of "group think" or "hive mind" types of things, and feel that opposing views should be given equal footing. — Ched :  ?  12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As to the issue of warnings, I agree that formal block warnings haven't been made. However, Dream Focus does have one relatively unique characteristic: his user page has been nominated for deletion as an attack page twice (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus (2nd nomination)). It was kept, unfortunately, primarily due to !voting by people that view "deletionist" as a word equivalent to "bogeyman". Regardless, any sentient being should have taken that as a warning that his behaviour was unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying DreamFocus is not sentient? Nobody Ent 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Kww implied DreamFocus's sentience; however Kww is not able to account for the fact that despite DreamFocus's status in that regard, he has not removed the contentious material from his userpage.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So should we just go mark Wikipedia:Rfc/u as historical and add a note?

Contributors who who persistently engage in low level incivil or disruptive behavior may be brought to ANI, where they'll either get block/banned in a big pile on, or the thread will be slapped with a close tag as "there is no incident requiring administrator attention," (depends on the luck of the draw).

because, honestly, that how this place looks from where I'm sitting. Nobody Ent 13:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Touché! Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would add "and how many friends they have" at the end of the parenthetical comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

delThis editor is a deletionist.

inclThis user is an inclusionist.

I get the feeling that if the community really resented the terms "deletionist" and "inclusionist", amongst other things, it wouldn't have permitted these userboxes, of which there are many at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Editing philosophy in fairly large use. They should only be used to describe ideals though, not to label or ostracise editors, or to use as leverage in AfDs. AfDs are designed to allow everyone an opinion, and labelling in any form of "shaming" is little more than uncivil behaviour and a COI, probably intended to oust an opposing POV, or dissuade other editors from commenting because they don't want to come under attack from groups who aim to keep everything, no matter how worthless. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Marcus about the userboxes of inclusionist and deletionist - I would delete them also. All wikipedia users want to keep notable articles and to improve low quality articles. Clearly Dream is a bit upset about the template deletion and was venting a little. A week block seems a bit harsh, especially considering his recent clean block history. If he requests a good faith unblocking I would support that. Youreallycan 13:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He has, and I've brought it to Jclemens attention. — Ched :  ?  13:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't motion to delete the userboxes. I simply note that their use should not lead them being used against editors in some wiki-political fashion. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• The thing is, most of us that might be identified by extremeist inclusionists as "deletionists" don't actually consider ourselves allied with that philosophy. I'm including myself here because I have been repeatedly tarred with that brush by past ARS members, all of whom eventually had a similar flame-out when something didn't go there way, all now gone either voluntarily or the other way. All because they got this crazy idea that all articles are worth saving, like they are puppies are small children and it would just be wrong to delete them. It's not wrong, and there is no battle for Wikiepdia's soul, that is just the rallying cry of the most extreme ARS crusaders who give a bad name to all the people who participate at ARS because they genuyinely want to improve articles, not because they believe they are in some epic struggle against an evil horde of wicked deletionist admins and their misguided converts. That's just silly. Dream is certainly not the most annoying of these folks ever to come down the pike, ad I sincerely hope this block will serve as a wake-up call and help him seee that so called deletionists are by and large just normal users who do not adhere to any extremist ideology and take each article on its own merits. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

comment by DreamFocus

I find I can not post on the talk page of the administrator blocking me. I also can't post a reply in the discussion about me at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dream_Focus_blocked. Lets see. Some agree my wording was obviously more humorous than emotional. Not sure how anyone could not see that. Some mention I received absolutely no warning ever for this. There was the time I commented "mindless deletionist drones" on someone's talk page [13] asking them to reopen an AFD so people who would actually do a decent job looking for sources could participate. I listed specifically why the guy was obviously notable. His work was clearly notable, thus he met WP:COMPOSER as the links I showed clearly demonstrated. Anyway, that perhaps was a bit emotional. No complaints at the time though. And no, having someone who argues with me in AFD constantly nominate my user page as well as others for deletion, a year or two ago, doesn't send me a message of any sort, since consensus was there was nothing wrong with my page. Dream Focus 13:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC) (reposted by — Ched :  ?  13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

I'll just point out that "And no, having someone who argues with me in AFD constantly nominate my user page as well as others for deletion, a year or two ago, doesn't send me a message of any sort, since consensus was there was nothing wrong with my page" directly contradicts "There is a widely held view - approaching a consensus - that there are numerous elements of the page that are problematic, because of their divisiveness or potential construction as attacks on other editors." I personally lean towards upgrading this block to indefinite until Dream Focus agrees to stop demonizing people that favor deletion of articles.—Kww(talk) 14:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, and favor an unblock personally - but talk amongst yourselves, and we'll see if we can find a place to reach an agreement. — Ched :  ?  14:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So, somewhere between an immediate unblock and infinity then ... As per this comment a week seems precarious. Youreallycan 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn block. If an editor has a strong POV, I prefer to know what it is, and DreamFocus's language makes his/her's crystal clear. And as a blood-soaked member of the deletionist horde, I like to think that I'm tough enough to brush off an occasional "mindless" thrown in my general direction, especially if it makes me stop and think twice, as it does from time to time. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Kww failed to note that Dream Focus feels that ARS are demonised for being in favour of inclusion, if "They insult the ARS constantly, and take subtle swipes at specific editors every chance they get" is anything to go by. So really, Kww, that is a biased block motion, because only Dream Focus' actions are under scrutiny here. Are the ones he means to be granted impunity whilst he gets flailed for having alternative views? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 14:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I noted that I cannot act due to WP:INVOLVED, and won't deny that I have already formed my conclusion. The ARS has the bad reputation it has because of a handful of extremely bad editors that attempt to disrupt the AFD process more than they actually attempt to improve articles. Ban that handful, and the ARS would be a useful tool for article improvement. As a class, inclusionists can be quite reasonable people that are helpful to the project. Dream Focus isn't, and making it clear to him that this "deletionist horde" schtick is unacceptable would go a long way towards making him be helpful.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I understand that.. don't feel I was knocking your comment, just noting that there are two sides to every story. You noted he demonises "deletionists", I note he feels ARS are demonised, as the comment on this page seem to infer. Perhaps, given the "mission statement" of ARS, it is time that the community laid down some fair anti-disruptive measures for ARS to abide by. e.g. only one member of ARS can act on behalf of ARS per AfD. That should be on a first come, first serve basis.. if they need to discuss articles nominated for "rescue" they have their own project talk pages, without needlessly disrupting AfDs with bickering. ARS should be acting in the capacity of proving an article is notable via identifying sources and policies with reasonably allow for a "keep" motion, and not disrupting AfDs en masse trying to usurp the outcome, attack "delete" voters, causing guilt and grief, etc. By limiting the "ARS response" to one, and any other ARS members should only respond on behalf of themselves, without repeatedly challenging other !voters in a AfD. Such community consensus agreed guidelines would reduce ARS's influence as an "anti-deletion" body, and could actually give it the chance to reform its ideal, allow them to focus on their efforts within their own WikiProject space, and direct their concerns at the "first come" member of ARS who responds to an AfD with positive reasons to retain an article. Each ARS member could represent ARS for a few AfDs rather than all members attempting to march around AfD like some vigilante group looking to "defend the realm from deletionist dragons". AN/I, in the meantime, would be used as an ombudsman only to respond to issues where ARS have broken the guidelines, which would be clear enough to decide when to block and not block, rather that the current situation, where ARS appears to act like a dog ogg a leash. If members of WikiProject LGBT, for example, went round willy-nilly tagging all BLPs with "LGBT" banners, it would be considered disruptive, the guilty taggers would be dealt with. ARS need to have the "cover each others backs" removed, and each member can then he held accountable for disruptive an AfD, as only one ARS member would be able to speak "as ARS" per AfD. That, would be the sort of thing I would think to impose, which is not as drastic as getting rid of the {{rescue}} tag and doesn't lead to all the AfD mayhey and AN/I overflow which follows when the shit really hits the fan. Just a thought, though, and may have some flaws.. but I've only roughly explained what I think might work best for everyone. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Could go either way. Clemens has generally sound judgement (when he isn't trying to undercut BLP1E anyways ;)), but Dream Focus' violent rhetoric is so over the top it is hard to take seriously; it's more Bugs Bunny than Reservoir Dogs. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, so we block a week for generalized statements statements about "evil deletionists", but we do nothing but waffle around people who insult other users and use curse words at them? (Do I even need to point out the people that i'm talking about?) Way to be one-sided guys. Silverseren^C 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  WP:NOTTHEM. Other comments don't justify what Dream Focus said (not that I disagree with your broader point). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  Seren, I think what you're saying is why do we block someone for saying things about "deletionists" when other editors openly identify themselves as members of white supremacist groups? What could be more of a battleground mentality than a race war? Good question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel I should bring this edit to the attention of the board. Rather confusing. Related to this topic or just random? See Special:Contributions/205.185.126.202. Яehevkor ✉ 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly disruptive, but there's nothing immediately obvious to link it to DreamFocus. There are a handful of banned users who have been found to do these sorts of things before, such that it's more likely an agent provocateur. Notifying the ARS on its talk page, or key inclusionist editors, would make more sense as CANVASS--this is obviously designed to hurt DreamFocus, and I'm not buying it. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus has been posting these kinds of comments on his user page for years. It's a soap box that clearly shows his battleground mentality. As for him not receiving a warning, I'd say that his user page being sent to MfD where multiple users noted that his user page was problematic was warning enough. How long are we going to let him get away with calling people who disagree with him evil? Support block. AniMate 16:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I distinctly remember comments like this, with that being ones of the nicer ones and it's clearly as bad, if not worse than what Dream focus puts on his page. So why wasn't Roux blocked for it? Silverseren^C 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again Silver seren, read WP:NOTTHEM. We're dealing with what Dream Focus posted today, not what Roux posted in May 2011. AniMate 18:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's relevant, because i'm giving examples of things which we don't block for and Dream focus' comment fall fully within that realm. Not to mention that most of the supports in this discussion are people who have had negative interactions with Dream focus in the past and, ostensibly, are deletionists. Silverseren^C 18:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Immediate Overturn Block Far from being a call to arms, a good faith intereptation is that the comment was merely a humourous way to release a little tension after the tradgic destruction of the Squad's template. If anything it expressed resignation, something almost opposite to aggression. The multiple comments at the TfD, ludicrously suggesting ARS does nothing of value, were far more provocative. Of course no one does anything about them as its far easier to confront an individual target than face up to the crowd. This block risks depriving us one of are very best contributors. In nobility of character he can only be compared to the Colonel and a few others. In his combination of innocent goodness and knightly virtue Dream is peerless here, I can only compare him to Sir Percival of the round table. One has to reach even further back to find a comparible failing of the concensus making process. This block should have been overturned within an hour at most. Not since a randomly selected assembly of Athenians sentenced Socractes to death has the consensus based process been brought into such disrepute. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant Feyd, you've done it again. More battle, conflict, good v evil metaphors. pablo 18:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like FeydHuxtable is trying to get himself blocked as well, some sort of martyr complex? [14] Tanya Stuart (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For a while I entertained the notion that Feyd's contributions on the discussion pages were a form of performance art, but I came to the conclusion that he is sincere. That underscores my views: it's both sad and dangerous that people can view Dream Focus and Colonel Warden as role models.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Kww, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the Colonel in many important ways is not like DreamFocus. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's true: Dream Focus doesn't corrupt the contents of Wikipedia. I've never caught him intentionally falsifying citations and misrepresenting the contents of his edits. I never could quite understand how Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden ended without consensus.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Updated below Take a look at my post on DF's talkpage for more detail, but in short I stated "I was once a member of the ARS too. There's nothing wrong with ARS...until one becomes an arse about it. Calling those who believe that a specific article does not meet Wikipedia policy for inclusion "evil" is 180 degrees contrary to the WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the collegial editing atmosphere that Wikipedia is about. Again, Dream Focus is not blocked for believing in or supporting ARS ... they're blocked for personal attacks, WP:BATTLE mentality, and the like." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: Extend block to indefinite This edit alone shows that it's DF's intent to continue to use the same damned terminology, and [this piece really says it all. The key surrounding ANY unblock request is that the user show an understanding of why they are blocked, and convince the community it won't happen again. DF is not even able to be civil, and is repeating the same behaviours that led to the block in the first place. INDEF him, and close this damned thing up (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'm quite conflicted on this one. On one hand we should allow Dreamfocus some space for venting but on the other hand we have a major problem with a very small group of ARS stalwarts demonising a segment of the editing population because they don't agree with their approach to content. I'm not sure its useful for a rampant evil deletionist to put forward a formal position but this battlefield mentality has no place in a collegial environment and some form of action is required to bring this to an end. Its simply unacceptable to tolerate a section of our community continuously attacking another on wiki-political reasons alone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, I think - this is not a one-off vent (as a look at User:Dream Focus will indicate), nor is it an attempt at humour - a look through his contributions will reveal much hyperbole along the lines of "they want to destroy the Wikipedia zomg to battle my brave warriors" but zero jokes. pablo 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• I had been leaning unblock, but this edit pretty much convinced me that he won't back down from his battlefield mentality. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Conflicted, along with Spartaz. (Which does not mean I disagree with Jclemens, not at all. Making a possibly contentious block of a well-known editor takes some courage--and to be moderate in the length of the block shows constraint and common sense.) No doubt DF can be disruptive and the hyperbole is ridiculous, and the recent ARS mess has only increased that. But any time someone who feels strongly about what they perceive as the goal of the project (even if they're wrong) is blocked, it's a bit jarring. But Ched favors an unblock, and I'd hate to disagree with him. I don't mind an unblock, really--I think DF's disruptions do not pose any great danger to the project, though I wish fewer new editors would listen to him. But can we conceive of a leash? No more demonization? Hyperbole about camps blockable? (I take real offense to being called an evil deletionist, esp. by someone with 49 articles to his name in five or so years. I'll take evil, sure--but not deletionist.) Drmies (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support block- It's been hard for me to formulate an opinion on this issue and I've tried to put aside my personal dislike for Dream Focus and complete disagreement with most of his opinions. On one hand the outcomes of the two MFDs on Dream Focus's user page might have given him the idea that the community endorses his hate-filled vitriol and deems it acceptable; his disappointment and shock at suddenly finding it's not might suggest a bit of leniency. But a closer reading of the second of the two reveals why this is not a plausible interpretation. The closer made it very clear that the community finds this demonisation of perceived enemies unacceptable and that Dream Focus needed to be careful, so DF can't have been unaware. The other ting you can see in that discussion is the way DF's friends come out in great numbers to deflect and shield him from all criticism and responsibility. There is undoubtedly an attitude on the inclusionist side that, because someone agrees with the inclusionist position, they are one of the "good guys" and therefore their behaviour is above reproach. All criticism can only be bad faith attacks from the evil scary "them" who want to delete the entire encyclopedia and microwave kittens. This approach is a disservice to everyone. I fear DF might be heading down the same ruinous path as User:A Nobody; that user started off as merely a very annoying windbag, but every time someone criticised him his allies would come out in force to shield him from accepting responsibility. As a result, his behaviour got more obnoxious and dishonest until even his strongest and most obstinate defender DGG could no longer protect him from the pile-up of resentment from the whole community. We all remember the final result: a spectacular self-destruct, permanent community ban, and repeated subsequent socking. I think there's a chance this could have been avoided if, early on, one of his friends had taken him aside and said "I agree with your opinions, but this really is no way to behave". I also think that, if there was an organized deletionist support group, to conduct similar defenses guys like TTN and Gavin Collins would still be editing. That's why approve of this block. It sends the very clear message that, no, calling an entire segment of the community "evil hordes" is not acceptable and, no, you don't get a free pass because of your friends' uncritical support. Reyk _YO! 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In response to "Reyk YO! 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)" I see plenty of people who have been against me in many AFDs support my user page when it went up for deletion both times, as well as strangers. Its not just friends rushing to support me. There is no "support group" where we all rush to defend one another. I do however find that certain editors who have been against me at times in the past, always show up to take another jab. You mention TTN being banned, and he was in fact the definition of an evil deletionist, one that mindlessly went around mass nominating things he didn't like, such as the entire first season episode of the show M.A.S.H, ignoring consensus against mergers [15], and arguing constantly that consensus meant that even when most people were against his viewpoint, it didn't matter, because he was always right, and even canvasing on a WikiProject he knew his friends were at to get help outnumbering an "inclusionist" who noticed what he was doing. [16] He even stated on his talk page that he'd target the articles that got less views first, and keep picking them off, to drive editors away, and then take on the bigger articles after that. [17] Can we agree that calling these actions wrong or "evil" is justified? Note that not everyone who says "delete" at an AFD is an evil deletionists, nor even a deletionist at all. If you ever see someone say "just because it meets the requirements for WP:GNG doesn't mean we should have an article on it", then that's an evil deletionist. Someone who says basically they want the article dead, simply because they don't like it. I guess we need a more specific term to be invented to refer to the bad deletionists if some people are sincerely confused and bothered by my wording. Dream Focus 22:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Copied from Dream Focus' talk by Goodvac (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting the message; you're tossing around the word "evil" far too liberally. Evil, in my mind, is someone like Ne Win, Than Shwe, Thein Sein, or Pol Pot. It is not someone with whom I have a disagreement on a fucking website. If you're having a hard time coming up with phrasing to use, let me suggest "disruptive" (as seems to have been the case with TTN), "disagreeable", or "something I'm strongly opposed to". I know my wording is very strong, but I want to make sure you can't misunderstand my message. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the above, I think this block should actually be extended to indefinite until DF understands that calling people "evil" because he disagrees with them is not compatible with Wikipedia's editing policy. 86.174.213.12 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention "If you ever see someone say "just because it meets the requirements for WP:GNG doesn't mean we should have an article on it", then that's an evil deletionist." This ludicrous assertion actually means that DF is describing his buddy Colonel Warden as an evil deletionist, because even CW understands the concept of GNG ([18]). 86.174.213.12 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from DF's talk page) An IP address with no other edits but in this ANI, mentions something said back in 29 October 2010 which they happen to have recalled, having surely been around at that time. Log in and use your proper Wikipedia user name please. And Warden nominated something he saw as violating the rules of being a guide, he didn't just nominate it because he didn't like it. Do those with a problem with the word evil live in countries other than America? Is it used differently there? The word "evil" is defined as [19] "arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct" and "disagreeable". So I think it fits well here. Dream Focus 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this complete lack of comprehension on DF's part justifies upgrading the block to indefinite. As I said, only WP:INVOLVED prevents me from taking that step myself.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you that I'm from New England. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "evil" is often quite controversial, even in the United States. A few years back there was a big controversy about politicians using the word, this article is an interesting read on the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't the whole "cunt debate" all over again, we are all on the same poage about what the word "evil" means, DF included. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from JClemens

• I did not block Dream Focus for the use of the word 'deletionist'--or even the adjective 'evil'--but for the combination of the two, attributing a word entirely inconsistent with collegiality and good faith to a group of editors with whom he has ideological disagreements. I regularly use the terms 'inclusionist' and 'deletionist' myself, because they're useful labels to identify a spectrum of approaches to content. Tacking an 'evil' on the front is inappropriate.
• I do not buy Dream Focus' unblock request. As has been pointed out above, he has a history of polemical attacks, which may not have resulted in blocks but have indeed contributed to the poisonous atmosphere in the inclusionist/deletionist discussions. While I would also be tempted to cite WP:NPA as a reason, it was brought to my attention during the ongoing civility ArbCom case that "no personal attacks" can actually be read as "no individual attacks", in that attacks against groups are not specifically covered.

  To look at specific problems with the unblock request and its immediate followup:

  • "there is no such thing as a battlefield mentality." denies the fundamental rules of conduct of Wikipedia.
  • "What I put on my user page is acceptable since it is my page, and related to Wikipedia, as past deletion nominations of it have proven." This demonstrates a large degree of WP:IDHT, as a review of the above-linked MfDs will show.
• I do not buy his "it was only humor" argument, either. There are plenty of ways to indicate humor in text; he used none of them. He does, on the other hand, have a history of such complaints. I note that those most familiar with Dream Focus' conduct over the past few years are least likely to give him the benefit of the doubt here--that's because he has had plenty of time and opportunities to demonstrate humor, but has instead demonstrated repeated polemic, as we can see in his unblock request.

Ultimately, it is the community's decision, not mine, but given his history of not understanding the impact of his statements, I still recommend against it. If he is willing to admit that there is such a thing as battlefield conduct, and that he has engaged in it, and he commits to improving Wikipedia content without such comments in the future, I'd welcome the unblock. The week's length of the initial block was in no small part because I don't believe a short block will engender the sort of introspection necessary for Dream Focus to understand and change. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone who has taken the time to read Dream Focus's user page can object to this block. It's practically a novel, so I understand why some haven't. However, a user page where one calls people with a differing philosophy anything from evil to unreasonable, vicious, elitist, and snotty is clearly a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. The length of the block is appropriate because he has been pulling this kind of crap for years. If he wrote the things he wrote about any other group of people he would have been indeffed long ago, but somehow his fellow Wikipedians who he has to work with do not get the same protections that other outside groups enjoy. Excellent block and frankly someone needs to take a machete to that user page and cut out some of the polemic statements. AniMate 17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What about we change the block from a week to indefinite and just add to every AFD - keep DreamFocus thereby removing the need for him to edit? (this is in the spirit of lightheartedness) Youreallycan 17:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not humourous, treats an editor like an object.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Very droll Im sure. A look at Dreams contribs shows that in addition to his quality contributions to AfD he often gives very helpful advice to newbies, makes substantive improvements to articles about games and general interest, and even makes sensitive and well judged contributions to high impact articles such as those about abuse. He's also almost talismatic, acting to inspire others just by being about. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me, I was only joking. He also created Titanomyrma, an article that was eventually featured on the main page. Although often in opposite positions with DFocus I vote commented here to unblock and see a week as a bit excessive. Youreallycan 18:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that if there was one sure-fire method of intensifying the battleground mentality it would be to hand out a contentious block to one of the most prominent participants. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree.  I'd say this ANI discussion should be closed.  IMO, this is an internal matter for the ARS.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Except not blocking when it's needed because someone is a "prominent participant" sends a very wrong message as well. FWIW, I would be, most likely, an inclusionist - and I say, good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair point. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "This is an internal matter for the ARS"...absolutely not. When someone from the ARS ABFs people who aren't ARS members, then it should be settled by an intermediary, not by the ARS. I support the block, and also support deletion of his user page. It's a battleground that overly opines, and that's not the only user page policies it violates Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • This isn't the venue for debating whether to delete his userpage. Open yet another MfD on it if you want to do that. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• One week is surely excessive, considering 1) as far as I can see we're talking of just a couple of sentences in DF talk page, 2) if he says "it was only humor" a presumption of good faith would not be bad, 3) a long block without at least one warning per BATTLEGROUND seems, as said above, one sure-fire method of intensifying the battleground. Cavarrone (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Um, it's not just for any one incident. He's done this a number of times... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Personally, I think the block is an unfortunate necessity. Also, I'm very disappointed in the polarisation between "deletionists" and "exclusionists". Can't we all just get along? bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Awestruck "this is an internal matter for the ARS" Wait what? Since when does the ARS get to dictate to the community what we can and cannot discuss?--v/r - TP 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the first time I have come across user Dream Focus. I have just finished skip reading his user-page. On the basis of confrontational invective such asthis, I should support this clearly punitive block, especially if such zealously polarised views by Dream Focus permeate his more recent comments.

I cannot support this contentious block however because

• the block has been made by a sitting memberof the arbitration committee whilst a high profile case is still in progress
• no recent warning appears to have been given. Assuming good faith and thus appear equitable, if someone has over-stepped a mark anumber of times they should still be given a warning such as 'Stop it or else!'
• the blocking admin openly asks for consensus yetboldly continues to comment, thus unfairly biasing any developing consensus
• I just don't like it becauseI come to bury editors, not to praise them ...

It is my personal belief that sitting arbitrators should recluse themselves from unilateral administrative actions, especial in contentious areas, to avoid being accussed of soap-boxing at best or redacted something else at worse

--Senra (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

While in theory, a sitting arb is no more authoritative than any other admin in a blocking matter unrelated to an arbitration committee matter (which this is clearly not), the status ascribed to the position is precisely the reason I immediately brought the block here for community review. If this matter were to come before the arbitration committee while I was serving, I would be recused--unable to participate as an arbitrator, including unable to provide off-wiki input to the arbs participating in the case. The reason I took it upon myself to block Dream Focus for the behavior I observed (I have WT:ARS watchlisted) is that I am as much of an inclusionist as any other sitting arbitrator, and I firmly believe the only solution to factionalism is for administrators on each "side" to police their own. If you look back through my contribution history, you can see that if I comment in an AfD, it's usually to point out sources and/or urge the article be repaired or merged. My voice in this discussion is thus not of one of the appeals court judges, but just another inclusionist/mergeist admin who says it's time to take a firm stand against this battlefield rhetoric, and get about the business of actually improving encyclopedic content that needs it. My block is as open for community review and uninvolved admin overturning as any other block. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The interesting thing here is that there is some fairly typical "inclusionist/deletionist" rhetoric going on. Humor or not, DF's statements are extremist in tone - "no telling what were valid articles" is an assertion that all material added to Wikipedia is valid, when in fact, Wikipedia has never claimed to be an all-inclusive info dump. OTOH, material that clearly meets WP policy is never deleted out of hand. So, extremist polarization is neither reflective of community reality, nor is it helpful to said community. Nobody in the WP community should really be here at all if he or she is unilaterally in favor of either keeping everything or deleting everything, and as long as this "in/out" argument continues to be expressed as it has, it's going to lead to giant wastes of time and nonsensical critiques. MSJapan (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "is an assertion that all material added to Wikipedia is valid". I have not said that, ever. You are taking my words out of context. What I said was No matter how many articles we saved, another hundred or so are destroyed each day.[49] No telling how many of them were valid articles, and just needed someone with an open mind, and the will to actually look for sources instead of just mindlessly spouting their deletionist rhetoric and seeking to destroy what others had labored to create. I am of course commenting on the fact that many articles the Article Rescue Squadron saved were originally going to be deleted, before someone showed up and took the time to search for references in Google news and other sources. Since I have voted delete on things in the past, and even nominated a few at times, I'm not against all deletions. Just the ones made for the wrong reasons, or by people who don't follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Copied from Dream Focus' talk by Goodvac (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to debate a phrase, nor am I going to debate via proxy; the assumptions in the overall position are inappropriate. Your "mindless deletionist rhetoric" claim is inappropriate as is "a hundred articles a day destroyed", you are seeking to state that those who wish to see articles deleted are not at all applying policy, and turning around and qualifying those statements after the fact doesn't change that. Frankly, I also don't buy your moderated stance, considering how vehement your claims are against the "deletionists." I would also note that, by your logic, the other side of the argument is: "keep per nom" is "mindless inclusionist rhetoric", and "a hundred policy-violating articles are kept a day" by those "who don't find sources before posting," and one in your position "would only be against additions made for the wrong reasons, or don't follow policy". Isn't that interesting.... MSJapan (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • MSJapan, you state that "a hundred articles a day destroyed" is inappropriate. But when I click on AFD [20] I see 124 results for one day, and the other recent days over 90. So yes, we do end up with about hundred articles a day destroyed/deleted. That is what happens. And I honestly doubt all of them deserve to be deleted. For years now this has continued. Does anyone have any stats as to exactly how many hundreds of thousands or millions of articles have been deleted? The Article Rescue Squadron did a fairly good job of identifying decent articles that should be saved, and helping bring them to the attention of those willing to search for references and help save them. I have the right to state my opinions on that on my user page. And I'm not putting everyone into two groups of course. Evil/bad deletionists are the ones I'm up against, not everyone who says delete in AFDs. Dream Focus 08:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's enough to convince me the block is good. He gives links to a page which shows a list of AfDs, some in process still, some deleted, and some kept, and tells us they've all been deleted. He then extrapolates from that false figure to an impossible hone - 'millions of articles' deleted. If for the last 10 years 100 articles a day had been deleted, that would be 365000 articles. Now clearly that didn't happen, and even he wouldn't argue I hope they should all have been saved. This is not the sort of mentality we want dealing with AfDs. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Excuse me. I should've said "are nominated each day". Most of them do get deleted I believe. It changes from day to day, so can't really be certain. I have no idea how many articles have been eliminated by deletion or replaced by a redirect. Perhaps not millions. I didn't bother to do the math. Bad math skills is not a reason to block someone. And I didn't say they should have all been saved, I said there is no telling how many should've been. Its far too easy to nominate mass numbers of articles for deletion, and far too easy for someone to go around and do what the nominator should've done if they had followed WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 12:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC) - ( copied from Dream's talk on request. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC) )

• Redirecting != deletion. Nothing is lost when an edit replaces the article contents with a redirect markers; the text still there in the history. DF does not seem to understand this point and makings even suggesting redirect w/ merge a bad thing (see Talk:Ocean County Sheriff's Department for example). DF's been around long enough to know better. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Everyone please look at that talk page discussion to see an example of a problem. No information is likely to be copied over from a "redirect". Masem states "But even if zero content was added to the County article, and this remained a redirect, no information is lost. It's within the open revision history any editor can get to." In cases where absolutely no information is copied over then the article is replaced by a redirect, it the same as deletion since most won't be likely to view it in that format. Wasn't thinking about that case when I complained about eliminating articles by delete or redirect. I was thinking of years ago when a certain editor went around replacing a rather large number of manga related articles with redirects and insisting things were "merged" when not one single thing was included in the other article. Anyway, do I have the right to complain as I did on that talk page, or is that a battleground mentality? Dream Focus 14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)copied from user talk pablo 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The attitude that I'm seeing from DF is both partially right and wrong. I agree with the concern that is this: when we admin-delete an article, all information from that article is effectively lost, all contributions to it nullified, etc. Thus to delete information in this manner is something to be extremely cautious against and a fight worth fighting to make sure that we're only deleting clearly unencyclopedic content. I strongly disagree when DF takes the battleground mentality that is shown above, that a redirect is of the same critical problem as a admin-deletion, and thus fighting as much tooth-and-nail against redirect/merges as with deletion. In the linked convo, I've tried to explain how the material that was once a page replaced by a redirect is far from being lost forever, but again, DF does not accept this fact that is otherwise accepted by consensus. That immediately sets a battlefield starting point, to take a singular position against consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• There was no consensus on the talk page. Different people stated opposite opinions. So, its consider a battleground mentality if anyone disagrees with you. Dream Focus 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)copied from user talk pablo 15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's not the consensus I'm talking about (though it is up to the consensus on that page whether to merge/redirect or not. The consensus that I refer to is "redirect != deletion" that is well-established across WP that DF is fighting against. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I support the block, and as usual I recommend the block stay in place until such a time that the community can be reasonably assured the disruptive behaviour won't continue. Given the current level of IDHT engaged here, I couldn't possibly guess when that would be.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• I support the block. The blocking admin acted in full accord with policy and deserves support for doing the job they've been entrusted to do. I think an indefinite block would have been excessive but a week is reasonable. I assume the blocking admin would remove the block if DF made a reasonable request and expressed understanding of the negative effects of BFM with a stated intent to avoid recidivism, and believe If DF made such an assertion, he should. To unblock without an inkling of remediation would send an entirely wrong message. So really, the call is DF's to make. Align with reason and the block is removed, maintain the hardline and we'll see you in a week. My76Strat (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I wonder how often you say that to or about User:Δ. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You are out of line with that comment. My76Strat (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• This rhetoric isn't anything new from Dream Focus, as a look at his/her user page would indicate, and I think many editors (myself included) have learned to ignore his diatribes. The block rationale for WP:BATTLE was sound. This us-versus-them rhetoric causes more strife than good and we should take action against it. My concerns: 1) the block length was a little long for having no warning or previous blocks for this offense. 2) Blocking for opinions vs blocking for disruption:

• One may say that Dream Focus was just voicing his opinion. There is nothing wrong with holding and voicing out-of-consensus opinions (I do this quite often myself), but you must do this carefully and with good taste, not by attacking editors with a strawman caricature. I'm a little worried that this block will lead to other blocks for comments that don't synch up as much with WP:BATTLE. Blocking for WP:BATTLE violations should always be done with caustion. Blocking admins must be sure that a user's comments are derogatory and inflammatory before using this policy to issue a block. ThemFromSpace 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot support the block. When Dream Focus has carried on in this manner for quite some time, to block him now without warning it at best capricious. While I have no doubt that a warning would have been to no effect, it should have been given. This was not disruptive enough to skip this vital step.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not commenting on the block, but it has occurred to me for the first time, although I should have realised it later, that the use of 'squadron' in the ARS title implies a battle. I've seen the template debate and commented on the template but really maybe we should be asking the ARS to change a what I view as an overly confrontational title. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow. What about the [DR] army from User:Steven Zhang's signature [21]? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That too, maybe. I have long thought that this sort of militaristic posturing serves only to increase the amount of factionalisation and role-playing on this site. pablo 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• The blocking administrator said I'm being blocked because on the talk page of the recently destroyed Article Rescue Squadron[22], I said "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." in a rather jokingly manner. There was no warning whatsoever. The blocking administrator then opens up a discussion on ANI immediately after blocking me, having a discussion about me in which I can not properly participate in. While many see the humor, others don't get it, and I'm trying to work out the reason for that, and if it really matters if the word "evil" is replaced by something that means the exact same thing. Refer to them as "bad" deletionists perhaps. It does not create a battleground mentality, since nothing I post on my user page is going to change how people act in AFDs. I have kept my over the top humorous bits on my user page only, with the exception of my last minor bit on the ARS talk page, and off of AFDs and any discussion pages. So I don't really see a problem here. If I had used the word "bad" instead of "evil" would Jclemens have impulsively banned me? Dream Focus 08:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block and Support unblock as per My76Strat, If Dream accepts that his comments were "misguided" and agreed to avoid such language in the future. Mtking ^(edits) 11:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block and some sort of ban given his recent statement that perhaps millions of articles have been deleted. See my comments above on this. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• I've been having trouble finding a way to express my opinion on the matter and Mtking has figured it out for me. I support the block because I feel that calling anyone "evil" is a bit (a lot) out of line. I also support unblock because I think Dream Focus may have intended it to be funny, as in he might be purposefully portraying it as a battle for laughs and not seriously, and because I think Dream Focus is smart enough to get the point by now without extending the block.--v/r - TP 14:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• The current block was a good block - DF's rhetoric has passed the point of acceptability. Given that even after being blocked, he is apparently either unwilling or unable to dial back on the personal attacks (calling people "evil") and the battlefield behavior, I don't feel X number of days is magically going to fix the issues here, and I would also support converting the block to indef. In recommending an indef, I do mean that in the traditional sense of the word: a block with no fixed end point, but not a block intended to last forever. As soon as DF is able to show that he understands that his current style of engagement is not acceptable and that he intends to fix it, I would support an unblock - despite his problematic engagement style, he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and it would be a shame to lose him permanently. Note: I put DF's unblock request on hold yesterday with a note that the block should be decided by this ANI, not by a single reviewing admin. I hadn't intended to comment here then, but now that I have, if it's felt that my putting the unblock request on hold is a problem, I have no objection to the hold being adjusted/taken over by someone else/removed/whatever. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock: Dream's comments being cited are no different than how he has been for many years, with nary a block I can recall. Some sort of discussion first would have been appropriate. Otherwise, we would have been seeing massing number of blocks in the past for comments such as "inclusionist Taliban" and other things the ARS has been called. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make internet drama.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That "Taliban" comment was struck by another admin and the editor warned. But it's a single incident - DF and other ARS editors have been doing this for years, whilst squealing loudly if anyone dares to criticise them. It's clear from the above that DF still doesn't understand collegial editing even after being blocked (from above - "if it really matters if the word "evil" is replaced by something that means the exact same thing. Refer to them as "bad" deletionists perhaps") and he's not really being helped by other ARS editors like FeydHuxtable (who even yesterday was using exactly the same language that got DF blocked). The sensible members of the ARS must be sitting there with their heads in their hands. 86.174.213.12 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "Taliban" incident is but one illustration, claiming its a single incident is wrong wrong wrong. The "sensible members of the ARS"? Who are these straw men Obama-like people who allow outrages to occur and simply shake their heads "oh well, we lost another new editor today and some worthwhile content, but that's what Wall Street wanted." No, when I see a horrible AfD nomination, I call it out as such. 90% of AfD nominations are fine, its the bad EVIL ones that concern me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support block, though not (on the grounds that surely, surely DF will see the problem) a conversion to indef. Disagree with Milowent that just because DF has continued acting as "he has been for many years" that makes it all right; he's been advised, strongly, to remove the battleground mentality, but has declined to. Maybe a week will help him to take the advice seriously. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Its capricious to block someone for doing what they always do without warning, that's my point there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"been advised, strongly, to remove the battleground mentality, but has declined to." Uh no, most people said it was fine. The few people I see complaining are the ones I see insulting the ARS constantly and arguing with me in AFDs. I broke no rules, and received no official warning for anything. Some people consider anyone posting their opinions about Wikipedia related matters "a battleground mentality" if they simply disagree with them on something. Dream Focus 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)_{posted from user talk. AniMate 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)}

• Comment – it seems that whilst everyone is looking to criticise Dream Focus and his attitude, and ARS, no one has offered a "safety line" that might be considered, here. Given that DF is reading and often responding to comments here, perhaps he might do himself a favour by considering this. Let's assume ARS is a means to an end, and ask him to justify it. The {{rescue}} template was offered to editors as a means of giving editors concerned that an article at AfD was indeed notable. I am interested in DF/ARSs "success rate". i.e. a sportsman who competes in 100 events but never scores high is not really that good, compared with one who has 10 titles under his wing. In a similar way, nobody is going to really thankful if DF/ARS saved 100 stubs from AfD that never developed beyond stub/start level. What I want to know, is can DF name all those AfDs he, as part of ARS, rescued that have actually developed into GA or even FA status, shortly after rescue, and therefore were worthy of keeping. Perhaps, by justifying ARS, DF can justify his role, rather than solely defend his attitude towards deletion. If there is good from retention/inclusion, there surely mush be just-rewards to boast? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Good block Of a regularly tendentious editor who likes disrupting processes. Also, noting that when groups begin to take via that they are outside the normal processes of the encyclopedia and exempt, that usually isn't a good sign, see WP:Esperanza. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What processes am I disrupting? Can you link to one example of this? Dream Focus 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • COI editing, Deletion process, Deletion process, Deletion process (WP:V/BLP), Deletion review. MBisanz ^talk 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • • You link to a place where I made a simple mistake, got reverted, and didn't pursue the matter farther. Have you never made a mistake before? Is that a reason to block someone? The second link shows me responding to someone who is accusing a certain editor of messing with the Rescue Squadron by tagging something the editor complained doesn't believe should be tagged, and I mention a previous article the person in question had tagged to mess with us about zoophillia vegetarianism or something. I don't remember its exact name. I then make the joke I already explained, which most people commented on say was clearly humor, "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." since the ARS had been deleted anyway. Your third link makes no sense at all. What are you complaining about here? [23] You then link to an AFD where I, among others, thought all rumors covered in reliable news sources about Sesame Street should be in a separate article, while some felt they should be included in the existing character articles themselves, or not be featured at all.[24] Are you trying to have me blocked because you disagree with my stance on things? The next link is something I already said I regretted saying, "mindlessly deletionist drones", I was just stunned at the time that someone whose well reviewed music is heard by millions and who has a detailed interview easily found about him in a reliable source, got deleted. I offered ample links and rational as to why the article was clearly notable, which it of course is. I'll bring that to deletion review once this block is lifted. Dream Focus 09:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)copied from user talk pablo 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, and per the recent comments at User talk:Dream Focus (copied to here), the block should be extended to indefinite until a convincing statement regarding collaboration with the community is forthcoming. The meme that evil deletionists are a problem has got out of hand due to a small group of mutually supporting editors—the longer that is allowed to fester, the more they will convince themselves that anyone opposing WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS violations must be evil. Please stick to improving the encyclopedia without the drama. Any unblock request should be accompanied by an undertaking to remove the blogs and rants from User:Dream Focus. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Very bad block, a warning should have been given first. Just imagine that you make some statement that leads to you being blocked because it is judged to be against community norms. For argument's sake we can assume that the statement actually is against community norms (as e.g. some later AN/I thread will make clear). Then, unless the block was needed as an emergency action to protect Wikipedia (in case of inappropriate comments like we're discussing here, that's hardly a possibility), your block would not have prevented any problems. Apart form this violating Wikipedia's blocking policy, the block is also counterproductive. Thing is that while you may have felt that your comments were not over the top when you made them, you could in principle be open to be persuaded that these sorts of comments should not be made here. However, because you are now blocked, that is likely going to make you argue differently. You may now defend your comments because, even if they are against community norms, they are not so much over the top that it should have led to a block (from your POV). So, the focus now shifts from the comments to the block and it leads you to dig in. The net result may be that when the block is lifted, you won't take on board the community feedback about your comments as much as you would otherwise have done. If you persist in making inappropriate comments after multiple warnings that are supported by the community, then you can always be blocked. In such a case, when writing an inappropriate comment, you make a deliberate choice to violate community norms about which you were warned previously. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support block: DF's battleground mentality and incivility has been a long standing problem. Even during this discussion, he does not seem to grasp the fact that he has been acting inappropriately, and rather than demonstrating any sincere and contrite resolution to improve his behavior, he espresses disdain for consensus and a flippant disregard for his fellow editors. I'd have nothing against extending the block to "indef" until he gets the point and sincerely promises to change his ways. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn block He might be blunt, and fond of hyperbole, but unless someone is going to write "WP:TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO HEAR ALL OF THE TIME" I think the project would be better served by reserving this type of action for occasions that are actively disruptive. Grumping on his talk page seems about as passive of a form of expression that I can think of. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Confused. Could I have missed some context? There's no way on earth that an editor could be blocked under Wikipedia policy for calling deletionism or deltionists as a class evil without there being more to the story, and to do so would be to take a side in a schism. Deletionism is a kind of evil. So there, are you going to block me? There is some serious thought as to why otherwise sentient good willed people would make it their urgent business to undo other people's contributions, and some would say this is a problematic attitude on the one hand, and process fault run amok on Wikipedia on the other. I know I've missed any current wikipolitics about article rescue squadron, or any dispute that led up to this. And for sure, the vast majority of new pages on subjects of questionable notability are simply not fit for the encyclopedia. But how did it come to this? If blocks are supposed to prevent disruption, what possible disruption is there from railing against deletionism on one's own page? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Three questions

The above discussion is convoluted in part because three separate questions are being discussed as if they were one question. (See False dichotomy). Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Was the block good

No. While improper behavior by an editor is a necessary condition for a block, it is not sufficient. DF has been engaging in similar behavior since 2009 [25]; the fact the community has long since tolerated the behavior implies there was no urgent need to bypass lesser sanctions. Arguments that WP:RFC/U et. al. "wouldn't have worked" show a lack of good faith. The WP:NOTBUREAU pillar exists to not let WP-this and WP-that get in the way of article improvement, not to justify violating consensus and civil. (It's rude just to block an editor without engaging is lesser sanctions first, and consenus for a block based on mild long term disruption should be achieved before the block).Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with that view. Imagine if Kiefer.Wolfowitz were blocked the first (or the second) time he disparaged some other editor instead of holding Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. It's possible (but not very plausible) that he might not have disparaged anyone else after that, but Wikipedia would have also been deprived of all his other contributions. Dream Focus does appear to do occasional stuff that builds the encyclopedia (article edit picked at random from his recent contribs). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes WP:BATTLE, and refering to individuals and groups of people as "evil" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is DF's behavior appropriate

No. Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think the most inappropriate part is his inability or unwillingness to see the matter from the other side or accept that hyperbole can become counterproductive. He does seem to have saddled on the proverbial WP:DEADHORSE at this point, although blunt confrontation can sometimes have that effect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I do see that some people are sincere in not seeing any humor there and thus bothered by it. I can reword things, it isn't a problem. I tried editing my user page already, but the block prevents me from doing that. I asked specifically what people were bothered by and examples. Dream Focus 02:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hell no And the lack of understanding, lack of sincerity, and incompetence by continually suggesting that they can simply replace "evil" with "bad" and still do it is mind-boggling (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Should DF be unblocked

No. Regardless of the fact that block was inappropriate, DF's arguments for unblocking indicate they "don't get it." They should be indef'd and a volunteer should carefully outline the necessary steps for them to be unblocked; I would support immediate unblocking as soon as DF agrees to a set of appropriate behaviors. Nobody Ent 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me EXACTLY what "appropriate behaviors" you are referring to? Don't be vague and expect me to somehow read your mind. I asked if I replaced the word "evil" with "bad" would that solve that problem? No one answered me on that. You need to be specific. Dream Focus 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Copied from Dream Focus' talk page by Goodvac (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing evil to bad won't work either. It's still that same battleground mentality. The people who disagree with you aren't bad or evil, and until you stop looking at them like that I'm not sure you should be unblocked. AniMate 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think anyone expects you to read their mind. However you should read WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:EQ to research "appropriate behaviors". When you are finished reading, you will also know the answer to your second question. I will give you a hint however, the answer is no. My76Strat (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks isn't valid here. I'm not targeting anyone personally. I am not attacking all deletionists either. I'm am complaining about specific Wikipedia related problems. And this [26] bit on my user page, with the edit summary "The barbarian hordes have overwhelmed us at last! Civilization is surely doomed." is clearly done in a joking manner as most clearly understood. Dream Focus 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You say "NPA isn't valid here." Consider the following where quoted text will be directly from policy while the corollary is mine:

Personal attacks are "Derogatory comments about another contributor". Does not require that you name or identify the contributor. Obviously you are talking about some, or several contributors. And the comments are derogatory. "Wikipedia encourages a positive online community". You are not achieving positive results or bolstering a positive editing environment and in fact are promoting disunity. Comments "should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Again you do not have to name the person for me to know that your comments are about people, rather than content or actions. "Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements." Even with your explanation that you are describing 'specific Wikipedia related problems', you are not following the first part which is to remain civil and follow good wiki etiquette. Specific examples of "types of comments" that "are never acceptable" include, "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." The affiliation is deletionist the ad hominem is delitionist equals evil or bad or 'mindlessly spouting their deletionist rhetoric and seeking to destroy' and the means dismiss and discredit their views. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Over the top humor does not justify the disparaging comments. "A pattern of hostility ... can be considered disruptive editing." Which also answers another query of yours where you demand to know where you have ever been disruptive. In summary, I disagree with your premise that NPA doesn't apply. The next move is yours, frame a civil request to be unblocked, be sincere, and curtail all of the BFM nonsense. My76Strat (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I do think the block could be shortened, I also think that swapping out adjectives won't keep this from cropping up again. A little snark now and then is more or less harmless (open editing ain't for the faint of heart). Calling other editors "evil" or "bad" and the like is beyond the pale mostly because it only stirs things up, makes folks mad, clogs things up and slows down editing. As an aside, I began editing here years ago as a strong deletionist. Bit by bit, I've become a very strong inclusionist. I'd even be so bold as to say I think that's where en.WP is headed, though it might take years. Meanwhile I think there are a few bad faith, many good faith, sundry mistaken and not-so-mistaken inclusionists and deletionists. Setting up fake dialectics such as going on about "evil deletionists" is what WP:Battleground is all about. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So those that disagree with me calling me a bad editor is fine, but I can't do the same to them? Can I say only bad editors nominate something for deletion without following WP:BEFORE and doing a quick Google news search? Can I say only bad editors nominate the same article for deletion more than once? Wouldn't taking something others have worked hard on and mindlessly destroying it calling it "junk", make someone a bad person? I'm not talking about articles that violate specific rules. I'm referring to people who seek to destroy something simply because they don't like it. That seems pretty evil to me. But, once again, this is only on my userpage, I don't call anyone out by name, posting on their talk page, or mentioning how wicked their actions are in an uncivil manner during AFDS or article talk pages. You can't censor how people think, and I see no reason for any obviously fake and forced smiles. Dream Focus 23:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a real problem with your battleground mentality. Few if any editors mindlessly put articles up for deletion. Assign sinister motives or stupidity to those who disagree with you isn't going to get this block shortened. Frankly, until you agree to remove some statements from your user page I think you should remain blocked. AniMate 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Whereas I fully support the existing block, I'm not following your logic in this thread. Taking the essential points of your three things, you're saying, "This initial block was wrong, but not only should it be kept, it should be extended to indef". I think a better approach would be to stick with this block now, and then if he keeps up with the battleground mentality, give him a longer one later Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support any aspect of this block and seriously question the reasoning under which it was applied. I certainly don't think any conditions should be laid on DF for his/her return. I state on my userpage that I'm more towards the inclusionist end of the spectrum does this mean that I'm advocating for a WP:BATTLEFIELD between inclusionists such as myself and deletionists?

The fact is WP:AFD is a deletionist paradise at the moment. People nominate articles on the flimsiest reading of the article and almost no attention paid to either WP:BEFORE or WP:Guide to Deletion#Considerations. 151 school articles were nominated in less than 3 weeks around the Xmas/New Year's period by one user severely stressing WP:WPSCH's capability to actually consider each AfD on it's merits. Several of those nominations were within minutes of each other, and I strongly doubt that WP:BEFORE and WP:Guide to Deletion#Considerations were followed.

This is further complicated by the fact that many people seem to !vote at AfD with scant regard for anything that's already been mentioned. They see the title, may actuallly click through to it, then vote with their feeling on the matter. This results in situations like that with primary schools where there is quite literally almost nothing that can save them from deletion, not the age of the school, not it's achievements, not any special status conferred on the school, nothing. The process is broken. DF was speaking out of his unhappiness with the situation. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How does Epeefleche nominating articles for deletion excuse DF's continual incivility? With regard to those articles, Epeefleche (and to be fair, I joined him in nominating some school AfDs, albeit in much smaller numbers). Epeefleche was simply cleaning up a mess that has existed for years based on a rough consensus on the topic. That consensus is that elementary schools are inherently non-notable, regardless of age or awards (incidentally, the age of something is not an indicator of notability or non-notability for any topic). If you don't like that consensus, create a broad-based discussion that the default should be all schools are notable. And remember, WP:BEFORE is not policy; it doesn't always have to be carried out. This isn't Epeefleche's fault, it's squarely DF's Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you're flat out deadset completely wrong. Elementary/primary schools are not "inherently" non-notable (see WP:OUTCOMES#Schools and WP:WPSCH/AG) unless you can show me where a consensus generated policy or guideline has stated that. As with all Org's, Elementary schools are generally not notable unless they can be shown otherwise. This has been pointed out to you at AfD on numerous occasions.

But thanks for your response as it actually typifies the problem. You come to AfD with a complete misunderstanding of the situation and vote as such. That means that you turn AfD into a WP:BATTLEGROUND because in a straight up !vote, people with such misunderstanding outnumber the people who don't come into such discussions with a pre-existing agenda. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Separately, and because my mind blanked before I mentioned it, your "AfD first, ask questions later" shown in your view of WP:BEFORE doesn't "have to" be carried out is a real problem. WP:AFD is not WP:CLEANUP. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between "not inherently notable" and "inherently non-notable"? Besides which, why have you changed the subject to school-related AfDs of all things? Reyk _YO! 04:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I said "not inherently non-notable", i.e., it's not the case that all primary schools are non-notable. You seem to have missed the "non" in your quote of me.

I'm bringing school articles up as an example, because I'm involved with them, to show that WP:AFD is already a "deletionist" arena. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, part of the point of this discussion is it's a bad idea to go around calling stuff "deletionist", "inclusionist", etc. Especially since you're stepping dangerously close to NPA with the "flatout deadset" comment. You seem to be saying that because I don't toe your line, I don't get it. That's not right, nor does it have anything to do with DreamFocus Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict). There is a long established consensus that primary or elementary schools almost never pass the bar of notability, and should not have stand alone articles. That doesn't mean that every person involved in forming that consensus is a " deletionist" which, as I've mentioned, very few Wikipedians actually identify themselves as. This is just more of the us-vs-them rhetoric that is the root cause of this situation and the overall problem with a segment of the ARS. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have my own opinion on this matter, which I won't share here because it's not relevant, but I will say that yelling "you're wrong, you're wrong" isn't going to help deescalate the situation. It's not a good idea to try to defend someone who was just blocked for a week for "evil deletionist" comments by racing in, guns-a-blazing, saying "it was a reaction that they caused, it's their fault"!!!! There are more constructive ways to deal with it, and I have to agree that this sounds like typical rhetorical bluster borne of adherence to an ideology over behavioral guidelines. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89: If my saying "flatout deadset" is incorrect, then show me how I am incorrect by pointing to where it is stated that primary schools are "inherently" non-notable in policy or in guideline. Until then, it's a perfectly valid appraisal of your completely incorrect statement that quite adequately demonstrates the problem in AfD with which DF seemed to be frustrated. This isn't about "toe-ing [my] line" (until you can point out that my line runs against policy/guideline, and that you are indeed correct that primary schools are inherently nonnotable), this is about a completely wrong statement that is, unfortunately, quite representative of the situation at AfD.

Beeblebrox: "Almost never" does not mean that they are "inherently non-notable", just that they're !voted against in practice. What I'm pointing to is the problem: the push at AfD is for articles to get deleted, i.e., deletionist. DF railing against that is symptomatic of the frustration that editors feel in dealing with the mindset at AfD.

Blade of the Northern Lights: No escalation. I am simply pointing to the problem underlying what DF said. Purplebackpack89 decided on his/her own volition to further demonstrate the problem for me. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure how the notability of schools relates to a DF block section, but I had a few question. Now admittedly I've only looked at the surface of this user/incident, but several items come to mind.

1. The offending comment was made at an undefined sub-set of editors (deletionists), rather than an identified editor. I understand that some editors may self-identify themselves as such, but still ...
2. The last block (as far as I can see) was back in 2009, and there were only a total of 2 blocks at the time the one week/current block was imposed.
3. I understand there are obviously issues with DF, as there are folks saying it (the block) should be upgraded. I'm guessing this is respect to our wp:civ and wp:npa policies. I note that there have been no final solutions posted where we can draw reference from here, .. yet.
4. The deletionist vs. inclusionist scale is a large one, with folks at both ends of the extremes, and some more toward the middle. I also agree that it is wrong to paint any person here as "evil" or "bad" - we just have different views as to what our policies dictate, and what we consider to be encyclopedic.
5. I note that there was no escalation of blocks (that I saw) in the sense that there weren't recent `12/24/31/48 hour blocks issued, but rather we went straight to one week.

Now, given that there are folks wholly supportive of the block, or an indef., I have a few questions:

1. Were there any warnings issued to DF prior to the block? We do typically provide a set of 4 warnings to even the "I like poop" vandals.
2. Have there been previous AN or AN/I threads which show a disruptive pattern?
3. How was this preventative? On the surface it has the appearance of being punitive. Were these "evil" comments an ongoing thing?
4. Has there ever been an RfC/U drawn up which established that DF's behavior is unacceptable?

My big question here is: Where is the history and documentation to support such a harsh sanction? Or is it that we simply "don't like" the ARS inclusionists, or DF specifically? And yes, I do agree that DF does need to dial it back a few notches; I'm just saying he should be given the chance to. — Ched :  ?  11:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good questions. I'm guessing that DFs refusal to get the point after the block is encouraging a lot of people to say he should be blocked until he does. Conversely, a genuinely conciliatory response along the lines of," message understood and I'll tone down the invective" would have seen the block dialled back to time-served a couple of days ago. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As many have already stated, there was no legitimate reason to block me. Apparently no one else has even been blocked like this, a full week, without warning. So why is it continuing? I already stated I would reword things on my user page. A proper conversation could've been done making this entire thing unnecessary. There is no valid reason to continue this ridiculous block. Some are mentioning the ARS and inclusionist and even linking to AFD and whatnot where I dared to disagree with them, as a reason for them to want to block me. But that isn't a valid reason to block anyone. Dream Focus 12:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)copied from df user talk pablo 12:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is continuing because there is no justice here. DF, asking what pejorative descriptions are acceptable for editors with a historic trend of tending to favor deletions misses the point entirely; there is no positive purpose in either describing or classifying other editors. You should agree not to discuss other editors, or question their good faith, at all, and strictly limit yourself to discussing the notability of specific articles that are being considered for deletion. Nobody Ent 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I do limit all AFD discussions to the articles being discussed. I have the right on my own user page however to list changes in Wikipedia I find troublesome, and how I think things should be done. I just need to change the wording here and there, to avoid any misunderstanding. If I want to complain about drive-by tagging, people rudely referring to things they don't like as fancruft or junk, people arguing that something should be deleted simply because they don't like it and believe it makes Wikipedia look bad to have articles that some might not take seriously, or other Wikipedia related things, I have the right to do so. Dream Focus 12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken: see WP:OWNTALKNobody Ent 13:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As soon as you start talking about "deletionists" or claim that editors are using AFD to delete things they don't like - making it personal even if you don't name any specific person - you've moved the AFD conversation from about the content to about the person/nominator/persons !voting "delete". That's a BATTLEFIELD mentality, making no assumption of good faith on the nominator/participators' part, and never helps in the conclusion of an AFD process. There's ways to still respond and debate an AFD without evoking personal attacks. If someone tags an article as "fancruft" or "junk", argue how the article meets all WP policies and guidelines for a stand alone article, and make it a strong argument so that others will agree and support you to counter the nomination. It also probably doesn't help taking the attitude that deletion is evil, in general. Admins know well enough that deletion is (generally) irreversible removal of content, and should be very cautious of taking a step that removes content without consensus. They don't need to be reminded in a rather exaggerated fashion that it is a heinous procedure. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about schools as an example of the frustration to be found in AfD. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not whatsoever - extend to indef Until they actually understand the reason behind their block, and can prove to the community that it won't happen again, no. let me say that I have been mentally drafting possible unblock conditions, but until the understand and accept the reason behind the block there cannot be any such conditions put forward (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Per [27], indef. Nobody Ent 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  I have no intention of weighing in on this crapfest, but it's an embarrassment that this thread's been open this long. I suggest resolving this or accepting it won't be resolved. Since I only nom at AfD on the sixth Tuesday of each month, I have no more to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Its disappointing that while theres close to 20,000 words here, with many clever and even eloquent position statements, no one favouring the block has made any sustained effort to civility communicate to Dream what he needs to change. He's all but pleaded for an understanding person to have a straightforward conversation with him on his talk. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WTF? I have an extremely sustained conversation on his talkpage on what he needs to change in order to move forward. He simply fails to understand, and fails to see what led to the block, and fails to adapt to community standards. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot force him to drink. Let's change to indef and finish this off. (talk→ BWilkins 

←track) 14:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't do a very good job. "Sighs", scare quoting "defence" and "rights", "bullshit," and even "WTF" are escalatory, not de-escalatory. A very calm, extremely patient discussion is called for, not agression. Nobody Ent 15:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)True, WP:SOFIXIT. Said the same yesterday [28]. (There have been times in the past when I would do so, but my Wiki-head isn't in the right place right now. First rule of DR should be "first, do no harm") Nobody Ent 14:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the love of God, will someone please remove their talkpage access for the duration of the block? I'm likely far too involved, and their sudden "turnaround" is making me sick to my stomach (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For the love of Satan, Oppose – DF represents one POV, you clearly represent another, so such a move would be WP:POINTY and conceited. The best thing you can do, it leave the lion caged without teasing it, and wait until the week ends. You won't gain anything by arguing with him, and it could lead to you being accused of baiting, if it persists. WP:ROPE comes to mind. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably best to just unwatch it, BW. pablo 22:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Extend to Indef per this, Dream Focus just doesn't get Wikipedia and that it isn't a street fight or a battleground. If DF doesn't get Wikipedia after more than 5 years, I can see no logical reason we should pretend to ourselves that next week week will be any different, or next month for that matter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• End block - Since it seems like this was prematurely ended and others are chiming in, here's my two cents. In my opinion "battlefield behavior" was begun by the deletionist crew when they attacked, yet again, the Rescue Squadron template and by the nose-counting rather than principle-following administrator who closed that as "Delete." Dream Focus was frustrated and JClemens went rogue, in my view. And not a word is being said about the obvious badness of that block, while the frustrated inclusionist is being menaced. Yes, there is a battleground. Now ask yourselves — from whence does this nastiness come? Carrite (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Australian inventions and user:112.213.151.85

112.213.151.85 (talk · contribs) I've seen runs like this before, often from Australia too (when it's not Hungary or Romania). A new IP editor categorizing widely into Category:Australian inventions. No citations are added, and some of these (within my own domain of knowledge) are just plain wrong. Owing to the volume, this may need admin action. Tank [29] was odd, as they didn't cat as an Australian invention, but did link a valid see also to someone who almost invented the tank - so there is some knowledge behind this, not just chauvinist vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This editor needs slowing down; I've reverted a few of these because there doesn't seem to be any substantiation to several of the claims. Further, he hasn't responded to other editors and is currently editing which is a problem.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

is also adding to cat Sports originating in Australia, without evidence or mention in article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a German IP morph busily adding similar dubious cats for Category:American inventions too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted 89.156.108.85 for claiming Software-defined radio is an Australian invention. Glrx (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the 112 editor seems to be adding a fair number of correct categories as well. Are there instances where the editor is edit warring to keep the false categories in? The 89 IP has only made 5 edits, only one of which was to add a category, so it could well be either a simple error or simple vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Han Dynasty

I just added a portal link on Han Dynasty and suddenly it's giving me a link to ANI. (I can't even view the page history now :S) Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh...fixed now. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is weird. I can't get to talk page or history without being taken back to here... But if I accessed it via your contribution history it seemed to fix itself. Very odd. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just undone your edit, though I don't really know what happened... Feel free to revert my edit as soon as you find out. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've found out what happened: this template got vandalised. I've self-reverted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the revdel? 67.122.210.96 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Gotta be WP:BEANS, my fellow IP. --64.85.221.215 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never understood why all these pages aren't all protected. →Στc. 08:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Budhism

Anybody got any idea what User talk:Budhism says? It certainly doesn't look like building an encyclopedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be Sinhalese, if that helps. --NellieBly (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem actionable at present, until we get a translation of the page. —Dark 14:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate confirms it is in Sinhalese, but unfortunately it is not able to translate it. I have left them a note about communicating in English, it's pretty much eait and see time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 

Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine

Hi there is a problem with an editor, who keeps adding a redirect in the Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine . Its from the Battle of Jaffa (1917) to direct to the Battle of Jerusalem (1917). The editor User:RoslynSKP is well aware of the Jaffa article and has edited it. This daily change has become disruptive. The revision history for the template is here [30] Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To begin, Jim Sweeney started this problem by adding the Battle of Jaffa to this template, as a red link. As this battle is described in the Battle of Jerusalem article, I changed the link to the Jerusalem battle, so that it functioned. Then he reverted it several times back to a red link. Jim Sweeney then created the Battle of Jaffa article, by copying material from the Battle of Jerusalem article, which I think is against Wikipedia policy. This new article fails to place this subsidiary battle, within the broader context of the Battle of Jerusalem, treating it as an isolated battle. As there was fighting at this time, all along the front line from the Mediterranean coast to Jerusalem, it was not isolated as the Battle of Jerusalem (1918) article makes clear.

Further, until I edited Jim Sweeney's Battle of Jaffa article, it did not even have a link to its parent article, leave alone any acknowledgement that the vast majority of the information in the article, was copied from the GA Battle of Jerusalem article. Because of these and other serious defects of this second generation article, I have suggested to Jim Sweeney on the article's talk page that the Battle of Jaffa article be deleted.

I have been reverting the link on the template back to the Battle of Jerusalem (1918) because of the dubious quality of the Battle of Jaffa article and the likelihood that it will be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Simon nelson

Simon nelson (talk · contribs) is an editor who edits extensively in BLPs, but who doesn't seen to understand WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP; he doesn't like listening to people or using edit sumamries or talking to people. A number of different editors have spoken to him multiple times about the same few issues relating to his edits, going back a number of years, and he refuses to listen or taken on board what they are saying. Examples from his talk page:

• Adding unreferenced information on BLPs, including change of playing statistics without a source or explanation why, or using sources which don't support information - August 2007, January 2008, June 2008, December 2008, March 2009, December 2009, December 2010, February 2011, March 2011, September 2011, October 2011, January 2012, January 2012
• Not using edit summaries - November 2007, January 2008, February 2008, February 2009, June 2010, January 2011, February 2011, October 2011
• Infobox formatting - December 2007, January 2008, January 2008, February 2008, March 2010
• Removing valid information, including references - May 2008, September 2008, February 2009, April 2009, July 2010
• Removing article improvement tags without dealing with the issues - September 2008

He was blocked in March 2008 for the above, but within 10 days was warned by an admin for the same kind of behaviour. In the very few times that Simon has used his talk page, he cites computer games as his source for his edits, which will obviously not do. Given all of the above, I am bringing it here for wider attention. GiantSnowman 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And the *current* problems with his editing are.....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Continues to add unreferenced information to BLPs, will not respond to talk page comments, continues refusal to us edit summaries despite warning & comments on that matter going back over 4 years... GiantSnowman 16:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4... GiantSnowman 17:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No-one? GiantSnowman 10:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For the moment I've issued a warning pursuant to this ArbCom remedy; I wanted to give Simon one last chance to choose to comply with WP:V and WP:RS, before getting my banhammer out. Further edits in violation of WP:BLP will lead to sanctions, as far as I'm concerned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. I will continue to monitor. GiantSnowman 10:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough violates editing restriction and creates errors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Rich Farmbrough doesn't want me to post to his talk page anymore, so here I am. He has two Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, the first of which reads in part "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page". I normally don't bother listing all his violations of this restriction, unless he truly makes a mess of it, which is now again the case. Apart from continued capitalization changes (like "reflist" to "Reflist", or "infobox" to "Infobox"), which have no benefit and which have had him blocked in the past, he is now using AWB in a mindless manner to add persondata templates and defaultsorts to many, many articles. Most of them are correct (because most of them follow easy rules), the human factor is needed for the more complicated cases, but seems to be missing here. Exactly the same kind of thing for which these editing restrictions were installed in the first place of course.

Blatant examples include Kelly Keen coyote attack (Persondata: name = Attack, Kelly Keen Coyote) and Right to Die? (Persondata| name = Die?, Right To). Less extreme but still problematic examples include pseudonyms (Red Ezra shouldn't be sorted under Ezra, but under Red) or Raja Debashish Roy, where Raja is not a part of the name but a title).

Considering the speed of editing (hundred articles in less than ten minutes, at least over a 1000 articles so far), and the blatant violation of the editing restriction, an immediate block seems to be needed. Fram (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The speed of editing means that he edits much faster than I or anyone can check these changes, see e.g. the brand new error Pat Quinn Gubernatorial administration (Persondata| name = Administration, Pat Quinn Gubernatorial). Fram (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He's not creating errors — he's expanding errors that already existed in the articles, except for Red Ezra: since we make alphabetisations such as "Twain, Mark", why shouldn't we also do "Ezra, Red"? If you don't know what a raja is, you might easily make an error for Raja Debashish Roy as well. As far as the others, those appear to be the result of people erroneously including birth and death dates in articles, either in categories or (in the case of the administration) in an infobox. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"continued capitalization changes (like "reflist" to "Reflist", or "infobox" to "Infobox")" wouldn't come under that umbrella, do you have diffs of those edits? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This one is very recent, from after he replied here even, so... This changes the capitalisation of the persondata parameters from the generally accepted one to his preferred one, and changes "reflist" to "Reflist", for no apparent benefit at all.

Thanks for correcting those categories. Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

(multiple ec)And why is he expanding on these errors? Because he edits like a bot (both in speed and in result), in violating of his editing restriction. Human checking of his edits (as required by AWB) would avoid these. Please tell me how edits like this one are not a) a blatant violation of his editing restriction and b) easily avoided with some human oversight? If you run a script that bases your edits on the defaultsort, then indeed any errors in the defautlsort will result in errors in your edit as well. Of course, if you do thuis with a bot, you will get an approval process and trial first, so people will actually check what you are trying to do before you do it, and there will be at least a semblance of consensus and control of the quality and value of these edits. Avoiding a BRFA and willfully ignoring editing restrictions of course removes these checks...

And what with the cases where no defaultsort was given? Should Papa CJ really be sorted under CJ? "Mark Twain" has the smeblance of a name, so sorting it as a name is acceptable. Red Ezra is not really a name, and Wicked Rose shouldn't be sorted as "Rose, Wicked" either... Fram (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Automated editing sometimes causes problems. If there's only a couple of blatant errors amongst hundreds of improvements, isn't it worth it? I went through 5 of his latest edits, and they seemed correct and desirable. -- Luk ^talk 14:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a process for such automated editing, WP:BRFA. Rich Farmbrough has editing restrictions for ignoring these (and causing problems) in the past. Any reason he shoulsn't have followed the BRFA path here? Fram (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I read the editing restrictions, they concern cosmetic changes and creations, not metadata. I am not aware of the specifics that led to these restrictions, but they state that they apply regardless of the method. However, I agree that Rich should use a separate bot account to do these edits. -- Luk ^talk 14:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of the box, AWB does not change the capitalization of template calls. R.F. has added custom code to his AWB to do this. Doing so violates his editing restriction, which says he may only perform cosmetic changes when they are already performed by stock AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Luk, yes, a bot account would be better. As I understand it though, no bot task would ever be approved to do edits like this edits like this, which is why Rich is just doing them with his main as a "I'm just improving the encyclopedia" action. However, with those edit restrictions on top of the already existing WP:BOTPOL and WP:AWB#Rules of use, the community is obviously not convinced that those edits are improvements. Although Rich means well, him continuing to make those bot-like edits in spite of policy and restriction is in my eyes disruptive. Amalthea 16:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Two of the AWB rules of use are (1) Check every edit before you save it. and (2) Don't edit too quickly. It appears that R.F. is breaking both of these rules with these edits. Any reasonably careful editor previewing the edit would have noticed that this article [31] is not about a person, and so would not have added a "persondata" template to it. Given the scope of this job, R.F. needs to put in a BRFA and get bot approval, which includes careful vetting of the task, and then it should be run on a bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that he has started a very similar editing run, where he is adding a short description to the persondata, and at the same time chaning the persondata parameters from the uppercase format to the lowercase, despite multiple previous duiscussions about this with quite a few editors, where the consensus was to use uppercase for new ones and to leave the case in existing ones, and where Rich Farmbrough agreed to this. The changing to lowercase has no actual benefit and is purely impsing his personal preference by rapid editing, a clear violation of WP:CONSISTENCY. Fram (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation as usual. We agreed not to change it unless the template was being changed. Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

There we go again with the personal attacks... I thought that you had agreed to no longer change the capitalization, apparently the "only" thing that happened is that nearly everyone but you agreed that uppercase is the accepted standard for this template. I'll not scream "misrepresentation as usual", but no, we "did not" agree to change it to lowercase at anytime. Fram (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was deliberate misrepresentation. Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

It seems R.F. is still performing the disputed edits. It might be helpful for an uninvolved admin to ask him to stop until the discussion is complete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems this is another case that should be headed for ArbCom, as I don't see the community ever agreeing on stuff like this. However, it's probably best to wait for the similar case Betacommand 3 to finish first. Right now that case seems headed for a historic impasse, where ArbCom agrees there's a problem, but can't agree on a solution. It would be pointless to make people go through Arbitration for no results whatsoever. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I will issue no block as I have been involved with his BRFAs in the past, but this appears to be a clear-cut violation of the bot policy. Assisted editing is still unacceptable if the user is not considering each edit. It's clear from these mistakes and the user's history that he is not doing so. — madman 14:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rich: "Slow down, you move too fast/ You've got to make the edits last" or thereabouts. Else I suspect this will, indeed, head to ArbCom which is something quite akin to being renamed "Sisyphus." Collect (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I need a break. Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I would advise you to stop using AWB and perform the edits manually until the conclusion of the ANI thread. Thanks. —Dark 14:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say that arguing over such a frivolous issue such as the use of caps in persondata seems to be awfully petty, especially considering it doesn't make a difference in the article. —Dark 15:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I don't understand why he keeps on doing this, despite objections from people like Magioladitis or Kumioko. This is not standard AWB functionality (when AWB adds Persondata, it does it in uppercase), so he has to deliberately exclude or overrule the AWB rules to get this result. Fram (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this ANI and wanted to add my comment as well. First off, as Fram mentioned I agree that we shouldn't be changing the capitalization of the Persondata template and the speed of the edits is excessive IMO. He also shouldn't be changing reflist to Reflist. Althuogh I too prefer the first letter capitalized this has been determined to be a contentious edit with some and IMO not worth arguing about one way or the other. I also think that Rich should be a bit more careful with his edits especially since he is on the skyline so much with so many editors watching his every edit waiting to block. With that said some of the edits as examples are built into the AWB Template rename page or other logic so we shouldn't be forcing the user to disable that either. Also, in the case of the example where he changed Unreferenced to Refimprove when the article had a reference that is a desireable edit and I frequently do that myself. I also think that there is only so much that can be done in the case where the article is miss categorized. If AWB adds persondata in good faith because someone has added birth and death cats incorrectly we shouldn't be talking about a block for that. --Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't notice that the meaning of the template changed. It checked another ~10 diffs and found this one instead. Amalthea 18:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep not much I can say to justify that one. I looked at it pretty close because sometimes the changes can be hard to see but I got nothing. --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To respond to SGGH — the capitalisation issues that Fram raised are not errors: since both {{reflist}} and {{Reflist}} are equally useful, neither one is wrong. That's a matter for the editing restriction, which I'm intentionally avoiding. The only thing I was addressing was the persondata template being applied to non-biographies. I would have addressed other factual errors if I'd found them, but I didn't see any errors in the links provided at the top of this section. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in the same boat as you Nyttend, if I understand your tone correctly. I don't really care one way or the other about the occassional editing of upper or lower case or even in most cases the removal of blank spaces. I don't really care about editing speed either as long as its not crashing the servers (unlikely) or introducing a large amount of errors. A few in a volume of edits is a certainty but large numbers of errors introduced to articles without being fixed are another story entirely. --Kumioko (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Turning reflist into Reflist, or vice versa, are both errors in that they are edits that don't improve the encyclopedia. They instead make it worse by polluting the article edit histories and the recent changes stream with useless noise. Per WP:MEATBOT, disruptive high speed editing of this sort has to stop, which I guess it has, at least for now. As for the suggestion of an arb case, I'm pessimistic that it would help. Arbcom has always been conflicted and/or confused about this issue, with the current Betacommand 3 case not showing much evidence of new understanding or resolve. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Some people questioned the number of errors in these edits. I obviously haven't checked them all, there are thousands of them, so I took a batch of 20 from somewhere in the middle, 12:08, 23 January 2012 to 12:09, 23 January 2012 (Mamadou Koulibaly to Special K (artist)). Whether this batch is representative or not is unclear. I've only included the clear errors, a number of other pages have less clear sorting rules. Special K (artist) shouldn't be sorted at K but at Special; Maeda Nagatane, Maeda Toshitaka, Maeda Toshitsugu and Fang Yanqiao have now gotten a defaultsort on their first name instead of on their family name, since the Western rules were applied instead of the correct ones (These pages all have a useful hatnote spelling this out); Stih & Schnock should not be sorted as "Schnock, Stih &"; and Richard Lefebvre des Noëttes should be sorted as "Lefebvre des Noëttes, Richard", not as "Noëttes, Richard Lefebvre des". That's 7 out of 20 that are incorrect (and 6 of which sorted correctly before he edited them), with some others like Li Meishu which may well be incorrect as well. Most of these errors were not caused by anything already in the article, but by lack of control. This is why a BRFA is needed for these edits, and this is why Rich Farmbrough has an editing restriction. Any reason why no further action is taken on this? He has stopped for now, but for how long? Fram (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:RFC/U is that way. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, and ArbCom is another way, and so on. "What RfC/U CANNOT do is: Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;" We already have these sanctions (and a lot of previous blocks), consensus about the problems with his manner of editing was clear, all that is needed is some enforcement. What gives you the idea that an RfC/U would have any use in this case? "Allow an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct."? He hasn't changed his conduct after the restrictions and blocks, he doesn't seem to care to explain it in this discussion, but an RfC/U would give a different result... how? Fram (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • So request a community indef on WP:AN. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between an edit that introduces an error and one that corrupts what was otherwise correct by replacing the correct form with the erred form. In every instance where I have seen the persondata edited, it was adding the information, and some of it did have errs. Consider our editing policy: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained, cleaned up on the spot, or tagged" "Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented" "Even poor edits, if they can be improved, are welcome." So quit demonizing people who add information just because some of it has an error. If they add information, that would be proper for inclusion in an error free condition, that same information is welcome if even erred slightly. The spirit is the information has been added, it has value, and it can be improved. The fallacy is that the article that wasn't sorted at all is better that the one that is sorted incorrectly. And it follows that you'd sooner preclude the 100 that were pristine to prevent the few perhaps even poor. The reflist thing requires I review his restrictions before commenting. My76Strat (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in my post above, he did not just introduce imperfect info, he introduced errors, by changing a correctly sorted article to an incorrectly sorted one, e.g. here. So it is not as if he only added less-than-perfect stuff, he changed correctly working articles to incorrectly sorted ones. Fram (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the situation is less urgent now that he stopped with these edits, I've moved the discussion of what, if anything, to do to WP:AN#Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Carliitaeliza

User:Carliitaeliza was blocked and has been asking for an explanation on her talk page. She speaks very weak English. I have would help her but I don't speak Spanish. Could an admin who speaks Spanish help her? Sorry if I put this in the wrong area. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 15:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) May I suggest contacting a member from Wikipedia's Español local embassy - relevant list here. Acather96 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting that she is blocked on Spanish Wikipedia; see her talk page there. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message for the user regarding the reason for the block here at en:WP; let me know if you feel I've missed something. The block on es:WP was due to the user not contributing positively, and failing to listen to advice and to follow policy, so it's not very encouraging — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, I explained her block to her in Spanish and in English at the time I placed it, here. The user is aware of why she was blocked, though explaining it again, as Frankie has, can't hurt. Bottom line is this user lacks the competence both to edit English Wikipedia and to keep herself safe while doing it. I would recommend gently declining any further unblock requests, especially given that she has promised before to stop disclosing unsafe amounts of information and then continued the behavior. This isn't so much a "you screwed up, rawr!" block as a "we cannot take the place of a parent or guardian in keeping you safe" block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Writing as a non-admin but top-1000 Wikipedian: I was glad to see that this user had been blocked. She was blocked on Spanish Wikipedia for telling lies and wasting other editors' time, and has been doing the same here. For instance, on 14-15 January she asked me and a few other editors for help with an unspecified article, and when pressed she named an article about a school, but then all that she did there was add an inappropriate photo, allegedly of her cousin, which was very crooked and had no encyclopedic value (e.g. did not show either the buildings or the uniform clearly). IMHO she has been pestering people here just as a way of evading her block on Spanish Wikipedia. To be fair she has since added an infobox and external links to a stub about a pop group (not that the links meet WP:EL). Given her marked lack of proficiency in English (about which she also lied in her Babel user boxes) I do not see any reason to encourage her to edit here. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of explanation of the block reasons on her user page, and, while edits on es:wp are to some extent irrelevant on en:wp, the story there is not encouraging. It's a valid for-her-own-good block. pablo 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to also look at Special:Contributions/201.220.233.208, especially this, which suggests this IP may be the same user evading their block, and this, which was the IP's parting shot after they were blocked. They appear to have since returned as Special:Contributions/201.220.233.214. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That range of IPs is blocked, or at least was blocked after its vandalism spree a few days ago. I, too, have no idea if it's Carliitaeliza, an impostor, or just a vandal who latched onto this issue as a fun place to vandalise, but in any case it should be taken care of for the near future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, Special:Contributions/201.220.233.214 is Carliitaeliza. She told me on my talk page in December. Thank you everyone for your help with her. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 14:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In view of this "confession", I have revoked talk page access. User and talk page have been indefinitely semi-protected due to IP vandalism and promise thereof. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert of {{infobox character}}

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

It was a bit ago so excuse me for the late notice (I was gone for the holiday's that weekend and my watchlist page had gotten backed up so I didn't notice it until an edit on the talk page), but User:Edokter reverted a FPP page without discussion based on his commentary with the reason of being bold. While normally that is okay, that template is fully protected so no one who isn't an admin can do anything about his reversion. He used his own judgement without consulting with the community to edit that page.∞陣内Jinnai 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I outlined my reasons on the talk page. I really did not pay any regard to the protection, as these high visibility templates are routinely protected against vandalism, not because of some edit war or content dispute, in which case Jinnai would have a point. I also did it after reviewing the entire discussion, basically overturning an earlier decision. — Edokter (talk) — 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If there objections to the edit they can be discussed on the talk page, no need for fire and pitchforks. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is no one can undo the edit when you came and reverted it, especially with while good intendioned, what seems to be somewhat faulty logic. The notice on the talk page appears to just be related only to a personal opinion on the matter; it doesn't show that you reviewed it not was anyone warned beforehand. Whether or not it was the intent, it has the appearance of a drive-by personal revert of a protected space by an admin who was being bold.∞陣内Jinnai 20:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Name-calling accusations

• Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChessPlayerLev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Userlinks added for admin convenience Jasper Deng (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm human, and enough is enough. I've been accused on an article Talk page, of calling two editors names, "Asshats" and "Idiots" here, which I did not do, ever, anywhere. (I would never do that.) I'm looking for some fairness here; to be falsely accused of this on a WP article Talk page, is really out of line. It seems very not right to me, abusive, even violent. Am I supposed to just absorb it? Is this Wikipedia norm? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, can we move past this petty forum drama and focus on actually improving the Chess articles on Wikipedia? I've gone out of my way to ignore your personal attacks before. The one time I finally respond to defend myself, you immediately make 3 incendiary posts in 12 minutes on the Talk Page about it, another post on the Admin Board for Edit warring, a post on Jasper Deng's page, AND this particular topic on the Admin board about it? Come on, I don't even have anything personal against you. I had intended to just ignore your further provocations on the Talk page too, but since you've brought it here, I'm forced to respond. Congratulations. Anyways, you're correct; you never called Jasper Deng an "asshat". I apologize. You only called him a "dick", a "weasel", "insufferable", accused him of writing "B.S.", and noted he was "unable to learn anything or admit any mistake". I'm sorry that my memory for insults is not more accurate. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, we have a WP:BOOMERANG here. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you know the concept even has its own theme song?[32] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Notified. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer your questions: yes and yes, respectively. Also, duck. Danger ^{High voltage!} 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

CPL, you're not sorry about anything – not buying it. You deliberately manufactured a scathing lie. Hello. That's slander. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding legal threats to your resume, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's the other way around here. Don't blame him or I when an admin comes to sully your (Ihardlythinkso's) clean block log. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

CPL, I would personally never fabricate a lie, as you did, against anyone. But that's me. Clearly, you blame "poor memory", but I'm not buying that, you said I used names "Asshat" and "Idiots" repeatedly. I never used them once. Where do you get off? You can make up anything and accuse? No matter how vicious and untrue? Sorry, not taking it. You crossed a bad line. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't stop making these comments in blatant violation of WP:AGF, WP:STICK, WP:IDHT, you, not him will be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Take a break from Wikipedia until you can agree to follow these, because otherwise the WP:BOOMERANG will hit you even harder. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jasper, I have no problem dropping the issue, but I would like something done. Think about it: how could CPL's excuse, poor memory, account for the fact he accused me of using a name like "Asshats"?! That makes no sense; is not plausible by any stretch. Is this type of thing allowed to just coast on WP?! What expectation can I have about this? It is not a safe environment here if a user can fabricate and accuse and get away scott free. I'll stop and listen to what you have to say re expectations. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, look at your own behavior. Do you think your dispute with me at Desperado (chess) is in agreement with your comment here? Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying that somehow I deserve or should accpet CPL's false and fabricated accuastions of name-callng based on our interations on Desperado (chess), I wholly reject that logic. To fabricate something vicious and false is something altogther different, Jasper. Perhaps you are not objective in this case here and should recuse yourself. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jasper, if you wanted to take some sort of action against me back at Desperado (chess), you should have done it then. To hold a grudge and let it color what's happening now, is a kind of logic that leads to, let's say, a complicated and unfair mess, unsupportable by any reasonable kind of path-plan. (What if you held grudges on everyone forever, and used them to weigh in on any current event, repeatedly, forever, as a plan of fairness? That idea is full of dysfunction and collapses on its own weight. Is that your plan?) I think you might be less objective here than you should be, overlapping past grudges onto current things happening *now*. Bad. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For crying out aloud. If you are going to exchange insults over an article, at least try to find one where it actually matters. The 'dispute' at Desperado (chess) seems to be over whether a '!' is justified for a move, or whether it deserves a '?' (or possibly a '??'). At least where I overstep WP:CIVIL I have the common decency to do it over something that actually matters. Can I suggest you read Life, and then try to get one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed. I decided that I was not going to open a WQA for Ihardlythinkso. I pointed it out because that's my first bad interaction with him and it shows that his attitude towards Wikipedia hasn't changed since then. My point here is that Ihardlythinkso, like you pointed out, is devoting too much of his time on the project to this dispute at the moment. Speedy close for this thread, please!. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It mattered. And you were not involved. (It is easy to render criticism from afar, when you are not involved.) Apparently, your issues have vastly more importance. Please let us know what they are, so we can make up our own minds on that, okay? It is so *easy* to insult and tell someone: "get a life". Easy and cheap. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a cesspool of a magnet (or magnet of a cesspool) dumping-ground for insults here. Anyone else like to drop a few cheap insults, to make themselves feel better? Feel welcome and okay about it, others have preceeded you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, since you asked, a few questions. Has anyone ever died as a result of a lack of chess? Has anyone ever died of a chess overdose? Has anyone ever started a war over a chess match, or stopped one to play chess? Do chess pieces have their own places in the periodic table? Is the right to play chess written into the universal declaration of human rights? Is there no God but chess, and is Bobby Fisher (or whoever) his prophet? Or is it just a game where grown men spend a great deal of time thinking about how they can defeat another grown man in an arbitrary contest which has no more significance to long-term history than tiddlywinks or bog-snorkelling? Please provide citations... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If chess was as trivial as you say, why would the USSR for over four decades make it a testament to their superiority over the West? Why would the Fischer–Spassky match be made tantamount to the fate of the Cold War? Korchnoi wrote a book titled "Chess is My Life" – go ask him about it. And watch the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" for a clue what it means that chess = Art. People can live and die, 7 billion people will die in the span on one lifetime, so what? But without art (and ethics), life (I think) is meaningless. And don't worry, there will always be wars. (Man is constantly at war, just like the ant. It is in our DNA. So what?) There can be justice on the chessboard – tell me anywhere, or any time, there is equal justice in real life, where humans rule. Your view of history is in your own valued self-defined paradigm. Apparently to you wars outline that paradigm. Whereas I think wars are boring and just a predicatable outcome of DNA programming. Zzzzzz... You're evidently not a player, so you couldn't know. Chess does not need me to defend it (did you think so?). Nice to meet you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Chess pieces are definitely not in the periodic table – don't be silly. (But, I think the pawn is in there somewhere; near Uranium!?)

Massive fights over trivial matters remind me of this Dilbert entry:[33] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If this were an edit war it would easily fall under WP:LAME. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you there. Maybe it should get its own special entry somewhere so Ihardlythinkso can look back on it and wonder why they raised a Hurricane Katrina in a thimble. Blackmane (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My goodness. Everyone stop typing and go get a cup of tea. Ihardlythinkso, have two cups; if you intend to behave belligerently, don't be suprised if you get some mild push-back. Everyone else, stop antagonizing Ihardlythinkso; he's clearly too worked up to handle discussion of his behavior at the moment. Perhaps a WQA is in order, but not today. Danger ^{High voltage!} 07:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya. (My weakness, is that I will respond to stuff thrown at me. No matter if it brings death to me. I don't care. Ethics & Art surpass death. Baseball Buggs, is there a song about that?! Shucks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think The Archies might have recorded one with that theme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You called people horrible names, someone responded by making a good-faith mistake (getting one of your insults wrong, and that's all it was, a good-faith mistake), and you come here talking of deliberate concoctions of lies. There is nothing "ethical or artistic" (to paraphrase you) about that. People make mistakes, they get words wrong. That's not lying; that's simple error, and it's part of human nature. We are fallible creatures, and it's folly to ascribe to malice what should be ascribed to simple human failings that we all - yes, even you - suffer from.

My suggestion to you? Stop provoking other editors. Insults like the ones in your edit history combined with this report give a strong impression of provoking people into attacking you, then crying "victim" when they do; that form of self-victimization gets up people's backs. You're not scaring away timid editors by being "blunt", you're making regular everyday editors wonder if interacting with you is worth the hassle. Honesty and politeness go very well together. (And to be honest, when someone is insulting over something as inconsequential in the long run as an edit to a Wikipedia article, my first thought is that they have something to hide and are using rudeness to try to scare me away. I'm probably not the only person with that reaction.) --NellieBly (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not call people horrible names. Please specify where I did that, so all can see. Otherwise, this is a mistaken exaggeration. Please back up what you've accused. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"someone responded by making a good-faith mistake (getting one of your insults wrong, and that's all it was, a good-faith mistake)" The fact is, CPL accused that I *repeatedly* called Jasper Deng and Elen of Roads "Asshats" and "Idiots". If he thought he knew that, that I used those names against others repeatedly, when I did not ever use those names ever, then that is quite a huge memory problem. I do not think any reasonable person would believe that it was a memory problem, as you are asserting. Especially, the uncommon weird name "Asshats", which is rather unique (I've never even heard of that name in my entire life). No reasonable person would believe his claim of memory problem, given these facts, IMO. I think it is a big stretch to defend his chosen excuse, a BIG one that you go out of your way to make. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"you come here talking of deliberate concoctions of lies. There is nothing 'ethical or artistic' (to paraphrase you) about that." I believe the excuse "memory problem" was a lie, yes, for reasons stated, and I think any reasonable person would agree. Being ethical is not the same as being infallible, I never claimed infallibility on anything. You want me to accept the unreasonable excuse on "good faith" in order to prove I am ethical?! When CPL hasn't said a word and others come rushing to defend him, no matter how unreasonable the argument? I'm sorry, that just does not square with me. It is not reasonable. (If CPL could elaborate how he came up with "Asshats" and "repeatedly", then there might be a reasonable basis to believe him. But to just throw the excuse out there, and then let others come rushing in to attack me, is not right. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that humans are fallible. I am fallible. I do not need the lecture. What you're basically saying, is that no one ever may accuse another editor of lying, on Wikipedia. (Confirm that you believe that.) Even if any reasonable person would conclude that, given the facts. "Asshats" is a pretty unique name. Saying I used it "repeatedly" is ... what? A "memory failure"? This is not reaosnable. But I'll agree that accusations of lying, may not be supported or permitted on Wikipedia. Is that what you're saying? Because I can accept that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the implications of that standard. (What is to stop editor XYZ, from going aroud whenever he or she feels like, telling other editors: "I resent that you swore at me and said xxxxxxx to me repeatedly!" And then when the accused editor complains, the accuser blames "memory failure", and then does the same thing again later, to the same or different editors? When do you draw the line and disbelieve the "memory failure" excuse? Only when a pattern has been established? Is that the standard then – a pattern prerequisite?)

"provoking people into attacking you, then crying 'victim' when they do; that form of self-victimization gets up people's backs". I really reject that line of logic. You are basically assuming a posture of blaming the victim. ("She was raped and it was her fault because the dress she was wearing was suggestive.") The fact is, I expect the same kind of protection from abuse that any other editor expects from WP, not thing more or less. And if I am at fault for violating WP policy re attacks, then please charge me and punish me, I accept that too. But do so farily, in both directions. That is fundamental fairness, and I don't have to defend it, it is obvious in principle. It's my belief CPL fabricated a viscious accusation, I don't buy his "memory problem" excuse, but you're saying I need to accept the viciousness because I myself have been a "bad boy". Oh gosh. Then why wasn't I prosecuted for that earlier? We have a trial and no jury, just denegrading comments and taunts, in it's place, and that is okay? Wonderful. If I did something wrong, then charge me when it happens. I've done nothing outside WP policy and given no comments to others that didn't seem to me appropriate. I cannot control others hurt feelings, and you seemingly want to make me responsible for any slight someone might feel at any time in the past, without prosecution, but to assume guilt, and accept any denegration now and in future for what I "have done". It's not an acceptable formula. It's pretyt messed up, IMO. Charge me with something if I commit a violation of policy. Don't hold grudges and use them to allow bullies to spit and slander and kick and punch and throw dirt and tease and taunt and name-call and etc., and then justify it all in your mind. That lacks fundamental fairness. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"You're not scaring away timid editors by being 'blunt', you're making regular everyday editors wonder if interacting with you is worth the hassle." And that is all supposition on your part. People are adults here, and I don't go around thinking and worrying all day long, on how I might possibly be responsible how everyone around me may "feel" at every given moment, and take on that kind of self-burden/guilt-trip – which would be both irrational to do, and crazy-making. I never said I was perfect. You are attemting to make me responsible for being perfect as though I am some kind of magical god who can ensure no one has the slightest bad moment in their day. I respect adults who think independently and have some resiliancy and strength. I refuse to go around on eggshells so that perhaps someday you might not disapprove of something I might say that perhaps gave someone an uncomfortable moment because of their own psychology. Look what you're saying. "Be perfect or expect the worst." That isn't reasonable or fair, or beneficial for anyone. It's not even healthy. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"when someone is insulting over something as inconsequential in the long run as an edit to a Wikipedia article, my first thought is that they have something to hide and are using rudeness to try to scare me away. I'm probably not the only person with that reaction." That's genuninely interesting; thank you for offering that! (However, it doesn't apply to my complaint in this incident. I complained about an editor deliberately fabricating mean & nasty accusations about names I called other editors, then posting it on an article Talk page. I don't see any connexion, but thank you nevertheless.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out very early on with a reference to Talk:Desperado (chess)#"Obviously, Black had better moves", you've said someone is 'insufferable' and 'insufferable, incurable' and a 'WP:WEASEL' (which doesn't make any sense, try reading what you're linking to) and a WP:DICK and said they write 'B.S.' and were 'unable to learn anything or admit any mistake' (repeated accusations of being unable to admit a mistake in fact). While not noted earlier, another accusation was some acts like a 'WP cop'.

As others have said, it seems to be true you never said someone was an 'asshat' or an 'idiot' directly, but when you've said so many insulting things about others, it's easy to imagine someone may not remember correctly what insults you have used. Even if it is true that it wasn't a genuine mistake, there's no way we're going to know that unless the person admits it themselves. (A history of accusing people incorrectly may be something we can look in to, one or a series of related instances is not.) So there's nothing else to do but accept it may have been a genuine mistake and move on constructively. Definitely accusing people of slander is a bad idea since as has been pointed out, that carries the air of a legal threat which is a real nono on wikipedia. (It also doesn't help your case when you're saying someone slandered you by 'deliberately manufactured a scathing lie', when it's easily possible the person simply misremembered what was said so you've effectively accused someone of doing something serious without clear evidence.)

AFAIK, I have little experience with either of you and I'm definitely not involved in chess articles. But having read comments from both parties here and in the other thread, relying solely on what they actually said, not what others said about them, I have little sympathy with your POV. (Which seems to be the case for most uninvolved parties here and elsewhere.) In other words, repeating what's been said, please consider whether your approach helps communication with others, or harms it. Even if you can't see it yourself, the evidence from the way others have responded should tell you.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone did call someone else an idiot or an asshat, then it's a WP:NPA, although not likely blockable (yet) - it's also directly traceable through their edit history. To accuse someone of saying something that they didn't, and is not traced through their edit history is uncivil. To accuse a random person on the internet of saying something is not slander or libel. WP:WQA is where we help peopel communicate civility. If all y'all are having trouble gaining WP:CONSENSUS on an article, incivility and personalization of the situation won't help anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

URGENT

Resolved

 – Oversight action taken, offending edits removed, operative pages protected. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

202.138.6.105 (talk · contribs)

Someone, please put a stop to that stalker's activities by (re-)semi-protecting his target talk pages, which are BLP violations. Blocking the IP is insufficient, as he's an IP-hopper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, on one of his talk page entries he posted a Facebook URL for the girl who's the target of his obsession. That URL is now blacklisted. But should something be done to notify her of the stalker? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That would actually be on several revisions, and it seems that this IP has had a fixation since 2008, from the edits. This could potentially be a law enforcement issue of some type from several perspectives, either the person mentioned or the Nazi flags and Jew comments. Oversight, maybe? MSJapan (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked an oversighter to take a look. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems to me that some of his other IP's might have hit another article or two, but I can't recall what they were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

210.50.42.209 (talk · contribs)<>202.67.108.115 (talk · contribs)

That's a couple more of them to watch for. There may be others. This goes back to at least late November. It's worth pointing out that an edit filter was applied early this month, and the guy worked around it by purposely mis-spelling the name of the girl he's stalking. In case I missed any, the user Tenebrae was closely involved in the discussion also. See his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

58.178.158.166 (talk · contribs) and possibly some others in that range, was posting swastikas as with the 210 series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking through 202.138.6.105's deleted edits now. I'll try to mop up with some suppressions, but if someone could email me or the OS address a list of the problematic diffs from that IP and his alternates, that would be a great help in case I miss some. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  Ok, between me and Courcelles I *think* we've got them all. If anyone finds more, or some we missed, please let me or the oversight email address know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Angmayakda

User:Angmayakda is a Filipino speaking editor who has been posting some unusual material around Wikipedia. [34] and [35] are the latest postings. The immediately previous one was [36], a distinctly confrontational posting to their talk page. [37] and [38] were mostly Filipino language, and Google Translate shows them as irrelevant to their articles. I don't think they are an intentional vandal, but I'm having a hard time making sense of anything they've posted and it's all been problematic material.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Intentional vandal or someone with a personal issue of some kind doesn't really matter. I'm not seeing someone here to better the encyclopedia. You might want to take this to WP:AIV, since this really is disruptive. --NellieBly (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No need, I've blocked them indefinitely. They had a final warning yesterday, there's no evidence this editor is here to be constructive, even the stuff they've written in their own language comes over as gibberish. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos violates topic ban??

ClaudioSantos has one of the widest topic bans ever issued (see: Wikipedia:Topic bans#Placed by the Wikipedia community. I would like to know if he violated his topic ban by takling part in an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Dowbiggin) about a person involved in the abortion/eugenetics discussion. It is a borderline case, but allowed or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban that wide is contrary to reason. I consider an OTRS ticket to be something far past that sort of "ban" - especially since I could readily see significant problems with the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Note: This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. does not seem to extend to "opining on noticeboards thereon" as that sentence is clearly the outer limit of the "widening". Collect (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I am free to ask if it is a violation or not. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said you couldn't ... you were just given an opinion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically it could be considered a violation, since a topic ban is intended to apply to all areas of Wikipedia; "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." It's not clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise in this ban. And it doesn't seem right to oppose the ban through selective enforcement, if the ban is considered improper then it should be modified or removed after a new community discussion.

However, looking into the history of this, and the discussion that led to the expansion of the older ban that only covered euthanasia, I don't see that this ban was enacted due to problems that occurred outside of article space. So in my opinion, the ban shouldn't extend to AfD discussions. -- Atama頭 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult again. The topic ban is so widely set because he kept searching the limits of his prior topic ban. And that is just what happens here again. But if this allowed, so be it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Malformed AfDs

User:Ksanthosh89 has nominated a slew of articles for WP:AFD today, using incorrect reasons ("there is nothing in the article" for clearly labelled disambiguation pages) or no rationale at all ("is this an article?" for a stub). I have left messages on his talkpage, but he persists in creating these malformed AfDs, all of which are almost certainly going to be speedily kept and closed. Please could a passing admin drop him a warning, and perhaps a temporary topic ban on nominating articles, at least until he's read WP:DP. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that he is now going through my created articles and nominating all of them for deletion, giving no rationale whatsover. Rather than a topic ban, I now recommend a block for hounding and violation of WP:POINT. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yunshui. This has turned from a competency issue to just plain vandalism. Singularity42 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing lastest one Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Henry_Blackwell, concur. Article is sourced and no reason given for deletion. Nobody Ent 12:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the latest one - all of them. GiantSnowman 12:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days by MuZemike. Any objection against mass reversion/deletion of his nominations? I don't think that they worth keeping open or proper closure, just nuke 'em. Max Semenik (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

They are being nuked and reverted. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Blatant bad faith and disruptive string of nominations with the sole intent to stalk and harass. User has been blocked 3 days as such, all AFD pages have been deleted, and all nominated articles hence reverted. --MuZemike 12:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have given him a week, he should be thankful - oh, I see his 2nd unblock request reason was 'thank you'. His first was "I will also give 2 line articles. Which I have nominated for deletion are two line articles. First confirm me that two line articles can be created without ref." and I've made it clear if he actually does this he might be blocked for a violation of WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A big thank you to MuZemike for sorting that out. Much obliged. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not that it would excuse the behavior (and it may not make a difference), but is there any possibility that this is a compromised account? I notice that there a three-month gap in edits: previous to that gap, the user was working on an article and adding refs, and after the gap is a mass AfD. The user also has his email listed right on his user page. MSJapan (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Kiko4564

Kiko4564 has been blocked since 2010. Under WP:OFFER I asked him to write up a statement for an unblock request which I will put up for community discussion. He is requesting an unblock with the following statement:

“ I am sorry for the childish malicious harm of what I have bought to wikipedia. I understand I was just as wrong to socially engineer my way out of a two week block. However, leaving my terrible past behind I have matured into what could be a decent editor if rehabilitated and given his last length of rope. With regards to my bad history of sockpuppetery, I will agree to cease the use of even nominally permitted alternate accounts, which are also known as benevolent sockpuppets. Yes I see my wasting people's time by my actions as malicious in retrospect, yes I can and will move forward and towards constructiveness. I have given solid proof and fully understand everyone's healthy cynicism against me being unblocked. I also apologize for my immaturity in various places e.g. wikimedia IRC channels. I have already given a long wait without socking (1 year). If given my last piece of rope, I will not be as stupid and immature to hang myself with it. I will instead contribute constructively and act maturely whilst obeying anything I am instructed to (provisos). M D Potter. Any comments? 21:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC) ”

I have no opinion on the unblock. I am merely enacting the standard offer posting the request here. I'm asking for community input on whether or not an unblock should be performed. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this better at WP:AN? It's not an incident and the WP:AN board is slower to archive, giving people more time to comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.236 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-admins are typically permitted to discuss potential unblocks ... AN is usually reserved for admin-only announcements (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Let bygones be bygones. They'd be on a leash anyway. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is just trolling by Kiko4564. He has done exactly the same thing in the past and it has not ended well (vandalism and sockpuppetry on multiple occasions after the unblock). All this is just a big game to him. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support- Why not? It's been over a year since they were blocked, I see no evidence of misbehaviour in all that time and some evidence of trying to behave constructively, and it's unlikely Kiko4564 would be able to do much harm with the scrutiny they'll certainly be under if unblocked. Reyk _YO! 20:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. We can't unblock someone who socked without a list of those socks - and full disclosure is a really good way to show good faith on the blocked editor's part. I've made that request at the user's talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- they have now done so on their talk page. Reyk _YO! 20:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Having looked through the contribs, there's not a lot of substantial editing to articles; Kiko's less than 1000 contributions consist, in the main, of minor items such as adding warning templates to user talk pages, fixing double redirects, and things of that nature. In short, I don't see a solid contribution history that would show me that this user was of great service to the project before he was blocked. Additionally, one has to lie in the bed that one has made - considering that Kiko talked his way out of a block once simply to continue his behavior, and has asked on several occasions in the past to have his block lifted or reduced despite being told otherwise, I also am hard-pressed to believe that the latest unblock statement is any more reliable or believable than any others. MSJapan (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Question Has the user edited on other WM projects and if so under whats name(s)? Good editing elsewhere is a mitigating factor. Also concur with the above statement that a list of socks would be necessary. N^oformation ^Talk 21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Support What harm does it cause us to allow kiko to start editing again? Nothing. If he causes problems, we can easily reblock. I'd rather have a reformed troublemaker editing under a known user name, than a reformed troublemaker editing under an unknown user name. Face it, if he wanted to, he could simply create a new account and nobody would know any better unless it resulted in some sort of investigation. If he did cause problems, under a secret account that didn't result in an investigation, then we'd be treating it like a new account without any history. By using a known account, it saves us the effort of an investigation and if he does cause problems, then we know the history and can better respond to it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Balloonman. Indefinite blocks aren't necessary infinite, and we should generally be willing to unblock someone in situations like this, especially since we can watch their work to ensure that they're editing properly. The worst that can happen is that we implement WP:ROPE. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with Ruđer Bošković discussion! [[39]]

We need a careful administrator which could solve the problem. He needs to carefully read discussion between users Ljuboni [40] and me, decide who is right and take the right action, because this constant edits are useless. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Admins don't settle content disputes. I have blocked the IP 72 hours for edit warring - if anyone thinks he is one of the regulars editing while logged out, please tell me and I'll block the account too. Meanwhile, if you can't agree, I recommend one of the steps in Dispute Resolution. Page is locked for 72 hours, if you guys restart your edit war when the protection expires, I'll block the lot of you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, could you recommend us a neutral "Third opinion" Wikipedian? Philosopher12 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:30 Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User Wee Curry Monster

Can somebody please look at this?, I am tired of this sort of behavior. I have worked on this article before, I am part of the Wikiproject Empire of Brazil, yet I have to deal with this sort of disruptive behavior. Thank you Paulista01 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, WCM's request seems politely phrased and reasonable. In what way was it disruptive? Wouldn't a straightforward answering of the question ended the problem? I see no admin action being relevant here, certainly nothing block-worthy. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Politely phrased? I disagree. I am not asking anybody to block him, all I want is not to waste hours and hours in a useless discussion. He is being personal in the discussion, this is not correct. Thank you. Paulista01 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're not seeking admin action to block, then you're probably in the wrong place. This noticeboard is for incidents requiring administrative action. There is a long list of potential avenues you could try at the top of this page. But it might be better to simply drop this; as an impartial outsider I see nothing actionable here on either side. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been polite throughout the discussion, though rather bemused by why an article on wikipedia was moved to a minority name in the English language. User:Lecen has made several remarks about "tone" that I took to be a genuine misunderstanding and commented that was not my intention. Now Paulista is doing the same. Being Glaswegian I am not the most sensitive of souls but is there anything to answer here? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Kim Dent-Brown, there's nothing really requiring admin action here, and I normally wouldn't have said anything to you if I'd run across it, given the rough and tumble way things work around here, but... since you just specifically asked for feedback... You very politely asked someone to verify they didn't cheat. That's not something that should be done as casually as you did, not because it necessarily violates some rule somewhere, but because it helps make the atmosphere on that page a little worse. If I were in Paulista's shoes, I would take offense. I probably would just have ignored you, rather than bring it here, but I would have been offended. Free advice, worth every penny. (and may God forgive me for acting like this is WQA). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - I've retired from admin duties, so my opinion may have little weight, but in a situation where someone suspects canvassing or off-wiki coordination is occurring, how else could the matter be handled? As far as I can tell WCM is being as polite as is possible, and has (what appears to be) plausible grounds. I agree such questions do nothing to help the atmosphere, but the alternative seems to be not speaking out at all, which is equally unpalatable. Manning (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But Manning, how is it plausible? The only reason for the accusation, it appears to me, is that Lecen and Paulista talk to each other on their talk pages. I see you recently had a message from Kat Walsh... if you two participate in the same discussion, how would you feel if I asked you for the same kind of verification? I'm not saying you can't ask a question like that here; I'm saying it's an accusation, and you have some kind of obligation to see if there's more to it than knowing they're friends. I've accused many people of being a sockpuppet or similar in my days here, but never casually, never without a pretty good reason to believe I'm right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well in my defence, I believe my query was based on plausible grounds as A) Paulista commented but had not partaken in the discussion B) Lecen appeared quite passionate about the name change and C) when I went to Paulista's talk page it was apparent they had collaborated often. At which point I'm on the horns of a dilemma. Either I say nothing and see the move request fail due to lack of a clear concensus or raise it politely as I can. I can see your point Floquenbeam and I thank you for your comments. However, also in my defence there has been evidence of the discussion becoming uncivil and doing my best to keep it on track. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nontheless if I have inadvertenly cause offence that was not my intention and for that I apologise sincerely. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem Wee Curry, I never questioned your integrity and now I do believe you did not do it on purpose, I accept the apology, the same on my part, if I offended or misinterpreted you, sorry. I hope we can work together next time. Best of luck to you. Thank you Kim Dent-Brown, Floquenbeam, Manning Bartlett and Wee Curry. Best Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Selery's attacks on an editor.

I don't know if this was brought up before, but I think that someone needs to look at Selery. I was aware of Selery's attitude towards User:Michaeldsuarez before, but Selery has started to make attacks against this user as seen here, here, and even here. Selery has some explaining to do. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 23:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the first one is a blatant legal threat, and thus a violation of WP:NLT Princess Derpy (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the editor in question has been blocked before for "beyond the pale" personal attacks relating to this matter. Mythpage88 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I invite others to decide for themselves whether Fluttershy and the other editors involved with the GNAA article are more interested in improving the encyclopedia or trolling in such a way as to create a hostile environment for black people. Selery (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit you linked to was simply maintenance, nothing controversial there. I'd also ask you check the message I left you, detailing why Wikipedia is not censored and that you (no offense here) do not have a valid case against the page. Princess Derpy (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Malwarefail.png

I gather Princess Derpy and I have different senses of humor. Selery (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the edit summary particularly instructive. Along with Princess Derpy's user page construction, including this link to an attack site: wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Princess_Derpy&diff=next&oldid=472888721 (note well: that edit places a transparent link to an established malware site over most of Princess Derpy's page; clicking anything but the "Back" button after viewing that diff may infect your computer with malware. Is this group of people interested in improving the encyclopedia or attacking the project?) Selery (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No malware there, it's a simple joke. Princess Derpy (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is this "malware"? Mythpage88 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it is also at korven dot sajt dot org, as per wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Princess_Derpy&diff=472925190&oldid=472924794 (note well: same as above) but I'm no longer interested. Selery (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Selery, as controversial as the GNAA is, the group has repeatedly proven itself to be a notable organization. Plus, WP:NOTCENSORED. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Princess Derpy's userpage links to malware and, for an added bonus, uses a fake you-have-new-messages bar linking to a shock image. This, this and this are totally inappropriate. Get rid of it now. All from a person who created their account a week ago, whose first edit was to turn their userpage into a bluelink; I don't think this editor is here to improve the encyclopædia. Is it boomerang time? bobrayner (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, Princess Derpy seems to be quickly proficient in policy, just a week after creating an account. I'm not saying that the user is a sockpuppet, but someone needs to look into that. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is worse, Fluttershy, Princess Derpy's malware attack or your defense of a self-referential troll article designed to create a hostile environment for black people? Selery (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I say that the malware is worse. Also, despite my support for the GNAA, I was one of the few in a recent deletion review that voted to overturn the speedy close. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 01:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. I only saw the offensive edit summary in your history. Thank you for supporting deletion of the GNAA article. Brohoof? Selery (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said I supported the deletion of the article, but that I supported the fact that people have a right to continue the discussion without the immediate intervention and closure of the discussion by a administratior. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 01:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Princess_Derpy for disruptive editing. It's obvious by his/her user page that the editor's intent is not to contribute to Wikipedia but rather to create a hostile collaborative environment. I've also blanked his/her user page, though I'll leave the edit history live for anyone who wants to better understand my block rationale. Rklawton (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no! 'Cause they seemed to be totally legit, being interested in the 4chan culture and all.[41] Boo! Doc talk 01:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope the blocking admin doesn't mind, I have deleted the user page in question. I can confirm it links to shock images or anyway inappropriate images thru a fake new message bar and I see no reason whatsoever to keep it laying around and potentially being disruptive to visitors. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection. Thank you for reviewing the matter. I left the page available after blanking because I didn't think the casual visitor would stumble across the edit history. Your approach works, too, since admins can still review the delete page to confirm the problem. Rklawton (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

PD is now requesting an unblock. I'll post my opposition to the request, but leave it to other admins to review. Note, though, that I would strongly object to unblocking this user. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

PD is now making a 2nd request to unblock. Note that the condition of the user page at the time of the block remained entirely inappropriate and the user is simply begging for more people to click on the link to a graphic image. Rklawton (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Selery has been warned before for personal attacks relating to GNAA. Last time I blocked him for two days, which was not long enough I think now for his disgraceful attack on TParis [42]. This time, for following Michaelsuarez around and posting a harrassing follow up to anything he posts, I've blocked for two weeks. Perhaps eventually, he will realise that being of the view that Wikipedia should have an article about this organisation is not the same as harrassing black people.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh fun, another GNAA discussion to add to the list. Calabe1992 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Loverpony is indeffed as a confirmed sock of Princess Derpy. -- Pakaran 04:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• The threats and personal attacks here seem pretty clear cut. The diff linked by Elen is way, way beyond the pale. Silverseren^C 04:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

jennifer granholm

Resolved

 – No admin action needed.

The Wikipedia page about Jennifer Granholm has an in accurate claim without any citation or source. It seems to be a clear half-hearted attempt by someone to discredit a politician they do not support. It is quoted as follows

"While she was Governor, Site Selection magazine repeatedly named Michigan one of the top three states in the country for recruiting new businesses and projects. Michigan was also twice recognized by The Pew Center on the States as one of the best-managed states in the nation.[46] According to the Gallup Job Creation Index, Michigan led the country in the improvement of job market conditions between 2009 and 2010.[47] However, over this same period, Michigan also reached its highest unemployment rate ever, and was the highest unemployment rate in the entire nation.[citation needed]"

The last sentence in that portion of the article is both none-sensicle and vague, there also does not appear to be any source material to support it. How can it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.2.241 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Excise the unsourced section, copy it to the talk page, explain why you deleted it and invite someone to restore it only if they can provide a reliable source. Manning (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Or just delete it as unreferenced and go from there. But the talk page of the article is definitely where to go with this. Doc talk 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Liquid cells (talk · contribs) disruptive editing

On USS Oak Hill (LSD-51), this user is continuously inserting unsourced, negative commentary concerning a homosexual "first kiss." I reverted them previously, but thought I'd ask whether it should just be reverted or other action be taken. Calabe1992 01:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I've advised Liquid cells about the three-revert rule and invited them to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. This is probably a matter for WP:ANEW (edit warring noticeboard) rather than this one. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I now noticed that it appears he may have been using an IP, 72.218.244.248 (talk · contribs) as a sock. It it continues, I will take it to that noticeboard. Calabe1992 02:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just reported the user and his IP sock to AIV. Do you disagree that that was the easiest way of going about it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, since this isn't generic vandalism. Calabe1992 02:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Gays are disgusting" seems like pretty generic vandalism to me. Not all vandalism is nonsense characters. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor didn't say that gays are disgusting, he said that some people made such comments, which is quite likely. The problem here is the edit-warring and the lack of a source for the edit. Nothing in the edits fits the narrow definition of vandalism, in fact it looks like good faith but misguided editing to me. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No source for the comment, so it has to go. P.S. The picture of two babes in uniform kissing is hot.[43] :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

Normally I don't like to give those sorts of comments the dignity of a response, as I think they contribute to a hostile attitude towards female editors at Wikipedia, but it really is a nice photo. I wonder if it will become iconic in the same way that the visually similar V-J Day in Times Square did. But, off-topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's actually rather tame as kisses go. I just want to thank Cells for inadvertently bringing it to our attention. :) On a more somber note, Cells admits that it's original research, and he was presumably unaware that OR is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, admitting that it's original research is only half the battle - he's still arguing that the fact that it doesn't appear in reliable sources means that the sources are biased and that we're trying to "silence" him. The section shouldn't be closed just yet. I've got the page on my watchlist and will bring further developments here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If the "reliable" sources actually are biased, there's nothing we can do about that. However, I would think that if there really was any significant grumbling about the kiss, then some reliable but conservative-leaning publication would have picked up on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto the above. Calabe1992 03:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't soil my PC by setting foot on Conservapedia, but supposing they have some sourcing standards, and supposing this event were covered, there's at least a possibility of a reliable source to support what Liquid Cells is talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalizm by Woe90i

The user Woe90i is vandalizing pages. He is removing information from pages with each and every edit that he makes. Examples http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Shivalik_class_frigate&action=historysubmit&diff=473073729&oldid=472263015
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy&action=historysubmit&diff=473076710&oldid=472526203
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Argentine_Air_Force&action=historysubmit&diff=473071349&oldid=472973946
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Indian_Navy&action=historysubmit&diff=473076058&oldid=472886274
All his history reveals such removal of content at his whims and fancies. Why no action has been taken against this vandal?

Tonnyn (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the correct place for this in future. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For now, please read WP:VANDALISM and familiarise yourself with the definition. The diffs you have posted here are not vandalism, the editor is simply removing content he believes to be inappropriate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is. If you don't want to see it that way, it will not. He is not simply removing it with full knowledge of what he is doing. Sourced content. Take the example of Shivalik class frigate displacement. Tonnyn (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

At initial glance at least, it appears that the complainant (Tonnyn (talk · contribs)) is a sock of Fulldisplacement (talk · contribs), who is also a sock of another user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And you failed to notify the editor, which I've done for you. Although this whole discussion should be closed. The only purpose it might serve is to counsel a new editor (the OP).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.Tonnyn (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The sockmaster is apparently Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs), who has a recurring history of edit-warring in articles about ships. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is about articles.Tonnyn (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Why Wikiepdia is so biased and racist? An issue is raised about articles being vandalized and you're discussing about something else. Can't you people address the issue?Tonnyn (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Another one, who knows only to mock. Who made you Admin? You lack the basic qualities to be one.Tonnyn (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, sockpuppets come in all races, colors, and previous conditions of servitude. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that one reason for this creation of socks itself is because of racism and prejuice within Wikipedia towards people who are not from Western nations, especially British. I have argued about Britain not being a great power and since that day I'm a a sock. So the ones who are not worthy to be inside are inside and the ones who are supposed to be inside are outside and socks. This is called racism. Pure racism.Tonnyn (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI requested, others who know more specifics comment there. Calabe1992 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably should have linked. Calabe1992 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Admins neglecting the vandalism by Woe90i? Is this not bias and racism?Tonnyn (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's none of the above. Calabe1992 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is. He vandalizes the pages that are not British. And write all stupid things remove info and some admins support him and vanquish who complaint. This is bias and this is racism.Tonnyn (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is racism, because it's done to people who are not British. This is going on for a long long time. Need to put an end to such bias and racism in Wikiepdia.Tonnyn (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I revert people who aren't British. In fact, I'm not British. Am I a vandal? Calabe1992 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not like that. There is a british group that does such thing. They do it together. Tonnyn (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't believe you honestly think we'll buy that. Calabe1992 03:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is. They do protect the likes of Woe90i. It's done with high handedness. I know it very well. I experienced it. No rules are followed just remove you. That's how it works. Then that person is a sock and will not be able to complaint and his complaint is invalid. This is happening in Wikipedia.Tonnyn (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What has a ship's tonnage got to do with racism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A ton, apparently. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll never know, he's -blocked and pending CU. Calabe1992 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he's been shipped out, so any answer from him will have to come from his next load of cargo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You too? Brutus?Werestep (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, Dave, etc do indulge in such gang activities. Dave is very famous Admin.Werestep (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, he got back to port in record time. Is there some way to put his underlying IP in drydock for awhile? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

God knows how many socks are out there -  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Calabe1992 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately a rangeblock would take out half of India. They do kinda come with a big neon light on the top saying 'sock'. Just tag 'em and bag 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it's a sock, I gave it a full on block. He can appeal through his master account (or not). Rklawton (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Kronprinsessavictoria

User is posing as "Crown Princess Victoria" (of Sweden) and has only edited articles about her and her family, adding remarkable genealogical info. I am not able to evaluate h sources, but have just done my best to clean up what I do not feel is relevant or notable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with revert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [44]; I can't revert the vandalism on this page as clicking anywhere on the page in question results in a redirect to the Wiki image of autofellatio. Can someone take care of that? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying but haven't found the revision w/out it yet. Calabe1992 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "Princess Derpy"", a few threads up, knows about this. Doc talk 03:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The page is behaving normally for me. I have IE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thing, but now after a series of reverts (and ultimately reverting back to the way it was before I came in), it's gone. Very odd. Calabe1992 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I went back a month in the revisions, and nothing was added that gave the impression the page would do this. Nothing that was viewable in the diffs anyways. This warrants further investigation. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is very odd (and somewhat concerning). Your original link isn't even doing it anymore. Someone else reverted vandalism (that I accidentally restored), but it had nothing to do with the foul image link. Calabe1992 03:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't stuff like this generally turn out to be a template that's been vandalized? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Sounds kind of like the type of hack that the infamous Grawp would do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec2)I reverted back to a version earlier this month. Not sure what happened but if I can, I'll try and see what happened. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we do a Checkuser on users Onlyspeak, Noggin2when and Coolkidxc? I've also taken care of some vandalised templates when I found out that clicking anywhere on the Vaporware page leads to the obscene image in question. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've requested protection of the image. The vandals appear to possibly be 175.200.112.221 and 68.188.152.27, per the file's history. Calabe1992 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is happening on several pages. See this one, too. Killiondude (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(c/e) No need for checkuser. Blocked the two first accounts, the third one had nothing to do with it. Will protect templates. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From the above diff, it's showing it's inserted via some <div></div> thing. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the other accounts used the same obscene image. And another thing: could this be yet another /b/tard attack? Blake Gripling (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That or some serial vandal. I find the former more likely. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've upped all the accounts to a total Avada Kedavra if you guys know what I mean. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that they do delight in schadenfreude and obscenity. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the two IPs who removed the bad image tag just wrote something totally irrelevant on my talk page. I don't know what they're doing. Calabe1992 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone figure out which template was vandalized to insert the image link to begin with? I checked most of the ones on Tulsa. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be Template:Col-1-of-3 (1 to 3). Elockid ^(Talk) 04:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Not counting the one Killiondude dealt with, {{Col-2-of-3}} and {{Col-1-of-3}}, which are redirects to another template. Hid revisions, protected templates. All good. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems like some /b/tard thing. [45] [46] If people could just monitor newbie's templatespace edits it can be handled faster. Killiondude (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No template appears altered to me. They're just using a transparent pixel and making it fill the whole page, then using File's link parameter to direct to the image in question. It's just abuse of File tags. People used to do it on forums all the time, which is why BB-code replaced HTML tags on many PHP forums. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd be able to see if admin's weren't trying to cover things up. Yes, it is template vandalism. It is including HTML that injects links and images in templates that are transcluded on various pages. Killiondude (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw pre-revdel. No template was edited here. It was a redirect. You can use link= in File: to make an image link to a different image. The image being used as File: was a transparent.gif expanded to 10000px, and the link= was the porn image. It was File: abuse not an separate template altered. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to protect "File:Autofellatio5.jpg". It is still being abused. Calabe1992 04:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Been done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SlipperySalmon questionable edits

Is SlipperySalmon a disruptive editor?

[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, their stuff is pretty bizarre, that's for sure. Calabe1992 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It all looks utter bollocks to me. Especially the Tenors one. Nothing being ref'd either. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. What's your game? I'M THE SLIPPERY SALMON AND THESE ARE MY WATERS 04:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlipperySalmon (talk • contribs)

Your talk page is very odd. Calabe1992 04:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay - this guy need indef'ing. He's just a vandal account. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

His user page is telling as well. --Mollskman (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can indef my FUCKING COCK! I AM THE SLIPPERY SALMON!