Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572

Resolved

 – Jvmphoto blocked for making legal threat. Guy looking into any relevant article/BLP issues. Best to handle this through email etc. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some more eyes on Jeff V. Merkey? There seems to be some tag-teaming going on to remove maintenance tags and insert self-promotional info. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been warned for 3RR violation and has refused to AGF as indicted by the comment above. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppet account of the SCOX trolls. Leave the photos in the article is better with them. People need to know all sides of me, not just the opinions of the Merkey-hating trolls from Yahoo SCOX. The whole point of biographies of living persons is to enhance the content of an article. PLEASE. Thaknk. Jvmphoto (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources, Mr. COI? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what should be asked. Why did you delete the sources and content? QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What sources? I didn't see a single source in your edits. Never mind, I didn't see the primary sources at the bottom; that section is decet. Still, is there a reason why you're editing your own article again? And adding an unsourced DOB, unsourced spouse, unsourced unsourced unsourced? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You did delete several sources including sourced text. For example, you did delete this reliable secondary reference. "United States Attorney Press Release Mooney indictments".

Why are you saying I am editing my own article. Please strike you comment or run a checkuser. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidently Jvmphoto (talk · contribs) is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked. Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, Jvmphoto should be blocked on that basis. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of the article, unaware of this discussion and JVM being indef blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat, protected

Subsequent to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's block and FisherQueen's decline, Jvmphoto posted "everytime you block me or post more of these lies, you are violating a Court Order.", which seems to me to be unambiguously a legal threat. So I've protected his talk page (but not blanked it; another admin may choose to do so) to prevent further threats. Evidently he's au fait with the arbcom, Jimbo, and the Foundation, so he knows where to go to ask for an unblock, and he should be doing that on his main account anyway. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh FFS. Jeff always talks that way. He's also pretty much incapable of working with the Wikipedia community, so I will send him email asking him if there is any error of fact that needs correcting. He's not evil, actually he's a great guy with many good and steadfast friends in the tech industries who really respect him, but he is very passionate about some things and he has been royally trolled because he rises so readily to the bait. Oh, and that photo is the same as the one on his FaceBook profile, so is probably OK even if it was a joe-job (which it probably wasn't). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No guy, he's not well respected in the tech community. With the attempt to buy linux for $50K, his continuous ranting on the lkml, his theft of Novell's property and the subsequent attempt to sell it to Microsoft(which got him a a beatdown in court) and his uncontrollable hunger to file really strange lawsuits http://scofacts.org/merkey.html, he's a laughing stock. For the record, I was User:Vigilant. I have not editing wikipedia in a long, long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've received a few unpleasant emails from JVM, but I'm keen to agree that he means well and just reacts badly to not being in control of a situation. I'd appreciate it if you let him know that personally, I have no hard feelings against him, but obviously on-wiki there are rules, etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this guy the one who said "I will sue you in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey"? Regardless of whether he means well deep down inside, we shouldn't give him further opportunities to go make legal threats on Wikipedia, not even if they're unintentionally hilarious. rspεεr (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was someone else, the threats to sue and legal liability made by this guy aren't specific to location. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article fully protected for 1 week - editors to attempt to reach consensus, I will remain on standby to assist.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ketabtoon (talk · contribs) is once again propagating WP:POV and WP:OR, this time in Afghan Mellat. He is deleting sourced and relevant material, proving that the "Afghan Mellat" party is considered ethnocentrist, nationalist, and racist. He removes a relevant source (from the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) which explains that the founder of the party was fascinated by Nazi ideology. He also removes a relevant link to the homepage of the Socialist International, proving that although the "Afghan Mellat" party calls itself "social democratic", it is neither a member of nor accepted as such by the Socialist International. Tajik (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the article's discussion page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

I already have. And I am not interested in any "discussion", when there is a clear act of propaganda for a fascist and ethno-nationalist party and ideology. It's already a shame that you knowledge the party's (and its founder's) liks to the NSDAP regime of Adolf Hitler's Germany, yet you say: "the source does not mention by which aspects of Nazi policy he was fascinated." So I am asking you here: is there any aspect of Nazi policy that YOU support? Tajik (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the admins (or other parties involved) to refer to the talk page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Tajik is very disruptive, a racist and he should be banned. [1], [2] He has been blocked so many times but is still edit-warring, POV pushing, vandalizing pages and meatpuppeting. [3], [4] Since he's restricted from making over 1 RV, he instructed another Tajik to come to Wikipedia to revert pages for him. He may also be borrowing his account/passwords and using it. Tajik is engaged in ethnic war, he's obessesed with hating Pashtuns and he should be banned so Wikipedia can improve. Everything he edits is about ethnicity, he should be at least be restricted from editing Pashtun related articles.--119.73.4.170 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

119.73.4.170 is the IP of banned User:NisarKand. This has been confirmed by admin User:Alison here: [5]. However, it's not really a surprise that this banned user is coming to support User:Ketabtoon. He did the same in Ghurids and Muhammad of Ghor (and of course vice versa). Tajik (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have fully protected Afghan Mellat for one week whilst you are both edit-warring over the content of the article. I have also reverted the obvious new vandal edits by IP 166.205.131.88 at that page. I have ignored the comments of the suddenly arrived 119.73.4.170 who does appear to be here only to disrupt. I will be watching the talk page for any supported consensual requests for addition/deletion of material to the article. I ask that you either reach agreement of NPOV content which does not provide UNDUE coverage of any particular area - or you walk away from each other to edit at articles with a different theme.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me for being disruptive. You're helping a racist editor to spread his racism. All I did was comment on Tajik and his actions here, this was not directed only to you but to all editors. Racism is just going to eat you live, it'll make your life very short.--119.73.6.149 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As a passer-by without any knowledge of the article itself: Firstly, "Social democrat" is not necessarily the same as "socialist", nor is there any guarantee that a legitimate social democratic party is a member of the socialist international. Secondly, a mere fascination with a certain ideology does not equal support for that ideology. The claims made by Tajik may or may not be correct, but the reasoning used in his comment is definitely faulty.88.77.186.196 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

After a lengthy (2+ month) discussion involving pretty much every editor that showed on the talk page, a new skyline photo was chosen by an almost unanimous consensus (Though few editors participated, there was plenty of time to do so for those who chose not to). Upon attempting to change it, two editors (User:PhilthyBear and User:ScottRios have repeatedly undone the edit claiming it against consensus (which they did not participate in). I have reverted twice, and am temporarily withholding a third at this point until I get a go-ahead (Though I feel strongly that this should count as vandalism and not 3RR). The editors have failed to even comment on the talk page, and only revert the edits despite both my edit summaries mentioning the talk page discussion.

Diffs

• [6] My addition of consensus per talk page discussion
• [7] first revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "No one agreed to this picture. It's terrible"
• [8] first revert by myself with summary of "Actually all but one person in the talk page did. Please take comments there."
• [9] second revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "Actually it was only 3 people discussing the change. Hardly a consensus." (and continued to not participate in the discussion)
• [10] second revert by myself with summary of "Stop reverting against CURRENT consensus and take this to the talk page please. You don't discuss, you don't get your say." (which is true, if they will not discuss on the talk page then their say should be ignored as undemocratic)
• [11] revert by ScottRios with summary of "This is not a dictatorship User:Floydian. You have been reported for 3R's" (a rather snappy summary, without any comments on the talk page (the user did not report me for my 2 reverts)

• User:PhilthyBear has not participated at Talk:Toronto, and very few other talk pages, which shows a lack of cooperation with other editors
• User:ScottRios has only participated in discussion at Gangs in Canada, and never at Talk:Toronto

I am notifying these users now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • User:Floydian has committed 3R's and is disrespectful to other users. The Toronto page main image has been used for some time and is perfectly good. User:Floydian removed the picture after a lengthy incoherent discussion with 3 other editors most of which was personal chat. The image which he replaced the good quality image looks of poor quality and resembles a 1982 family photo quality. A coherent conversation on the talk page should take place and not personal chat with dozens of images posted. PhilthyBear (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

After having a quick look through the talk page I'd like to say that it appears that User:Floydian is in the right here. There is clear consensus (it's not his fault only a few users took part in the discussion) and despite anything else, that trumps all. There's no point in coming on to this noticeboard and saying he engaged in 'personal chat' when one can go to the discussion and see that is simply not true, I think there was a good quality, in-depth discussion about the subject in hand between editors that seem to take a keen interest in it, I think if anything it is one of the better talk exchanges I have seen. Also, if User:Floydian did revert the 3rr rule (I would argue he didn't, he was combatting vandalism, i.e. editors going against consensus) or was disrespectful then don't simply make that your response to this post because it simply looks like you're grabbing at straws, if he has played unfairly then start a new thread about his conduct. In summary, there is concensus to change the picture and what it should be changed to and therefore PhilthyBear and ScottRios should accept that and take any concerns to the talk page. RaseaC (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The point was also to draw more conversation in to the talk page, a point which PhilthyBear clearly missed (and given the quick removal of my post from his talk page (which is technically against policy I believe), has no interest in persuing). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is (although this is a source of controversy) acceptable to users to do anything they like with their talk pages, there's not much that can be done about it. However, it is gernally the sign of a poor editor. The user in question seems to have a history of clearing his talkpage due mostly, it would appear, to other users raising concerns about his questionable behaviour, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. RaseaC (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also possibly not entirely relevant to this discussion, but are users ScottRios and PhilthyBear the same user using sock accounts to get around the three revert rule? Yes they are both Canadian editors so do share some article editing history, but their manners and turns of phrase sound identical, especially when it comes to mistakes. For instance ScottRios's edit summary here [12] is more than a little similar to Philthy's edit [13] here where they both accuse him of 3R's (erroneously I must add.) I think this bears looking into, though I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and go with AGF. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Try to keep your points clear, the issue is disruption through multiple reverts and apparent refusal to discuss. Consensus can and does change and the fact that a perceived consensus existed is only important for supporting the need to discuss; in other words "we've had a discussion, so BRD isn't an appropriate method for editing here". A discussion between a small number of people does not "trump all". Also removal of comments on the user's talk page merely means that the user has read them.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that if you don't speak, you don't get your say. Reverting is not a method of communication, and trying to have your say through reversion summaries is totally inappropriate behavior. I also feel I was pretty clear as I make the claim of vandalism and lack of communication in the first paragraph, before the diffs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me just clarify two of my points you raised. Firstly WP works on consensus, and therefore if a group of people reach a consensus, then we work with what that group decides (in most cases). Simple. Secondly, an established, respected editor blanking their talk page of valid comments (lets forget vandalism here) is one thing (I personally would still consider that person a poor editor and not give them the time of day, but I would bare in mind their experience) an editor who devotes most of his time on WP to be disruptive and incivil who then goes on to blank their talk page is obviosuly a different matter alltogether. RaseaC (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While it would have been perfectly legitimate for PhilthyBear and ScottRios to question the consensus that had been reached, they instead took the bully approach with unilateral reverts and unfortunate came-out-of-left-field name calling (both of them throwing around the word "dictator"). They both clearly had things to say, but acted on them in a really inappropriate manner. Until they choose to become involved in the manner in which they did, the discussion on the talk page had been lengthy, with some differences of opinion, but had remained civil the entire time - sadly, now we've ended up in this forum, which is really disappointing. Ironically, had they both bothered to chime in on the talk page (assuming for a moment that one of them isn't a sock puppet), I don't think there would have been consensus for the change that so infuriated them. But while consensus is not immutable, it doesn't get changed through actions like those of PhilthyBear and ScottRios in this particular case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yousaf.john (talk · contribs) is a sock, but I don't remember the name of the sockmaster. He has recreated wikiprojects that were deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Small_Pakistan_wikiprojects as POINTy creations of a sock. A clear WP:DUCK case. Please look at the deleted versions and post here the name of the account. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I know which case you're talking about, but I can't remember the name either, let me search through my watchlist and archives and such.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Investigations concerning the above conducted by myself and mainly Redvers(mostly Redvers) have turned up five accounts, all blocked by Future Perfect. I however need some sleep, but I'll be contacting him, and filing an SPI, tomorrow.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the account you both have in mind is Teckgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No comment as to the question of whether Yousaf is a sock puppet. AGK 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the account I had on my mind was a similar sounding username.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entlínkt ist doof! 22.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Found the name of the sockmaster, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Discussion returned to talk pages Leaky Caldron 22:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting this here based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and in particular Dealing with disruptive editors.

In the English Defense League article a consensus was reached yesterday on the lead sentence in which the previously disputed use of the word “political” was agreed to be dropped. Consensus and reasoning are here: [14]. There were clear issues concerning WP:NOR, WP:Weight, WP:Synth & WP:Verifiability relating the insistence that this group is, in its present form and structure, a political group.

Verbal has strenuously argued against this in the past but did not participate in the most recent consensus discussion. Nevertheless, a previously strong supporter of the word (Snowded) did agree to drop his opposition in the discussion referenced above. Only following that agreement with a previous antagonist was the disputed phrase modified (by Snowded himself) clearly reflecting the revised consensus [15]. The previous consensus had been weak and was confused by the use of the expression "far right" which is no longer at issue. The latest consesus is strong - especially as it is backed by a previous opponent.

Today Verbal maintains that the use of political is “factual and well supported content” in this dif. [16] and maybe had not read the amended consensus before reverting what he judged to be an unapproved change. I therefore changed it back per consensus here [17] pointing out the new consensus. However, he has since changed the lead back at this dif: [18] claiming consensus, RS and bizarrely, “dictionary definition and the fact this is an encyclopaedia,”

He has strenuously argued about this previously. Without providing a source he has relied upon the interpretation that political is inferred in the use of “right wing”. That in itself is a taut rendering the use of the word “political” redundant. However, the main argument against using “political” remains most importantly the lack of any source. Given what is reliably sourced about EDL it would currently be unduly prominent in the lead for an organisation characterised as a street-based, football hooligan-based mob.

If there is a more suitable venue for this please advise.

Leaky Caldron 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so this is the wrong venue. Also, it is not my editing that is disruptive and there was no attempt at following WP:DR before bringing this to ANI. A "new consensus" has not yet been established. For these two reasons at least it is premature to bring this here, especially as there has been no edit warring. However, I would welcome the input of more editors at the article and would hope more people get involved and add it to their watch lists. Verbal chat 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Verbal, this is edit warring [19] but I'll not revert it until guided. However, the consensus (even without you) is very clear. I've played everything by the book here. The content dispute was resolved by consensus and your edits were therefore out of line. Dealing with disruptive editors point to here and I cannot find a more suitable forum unless the NPOV noticeboard is preferable. This would have degenerated into 3RR in a matter of minutes. Making false claims of a personal attack does nothing to help either. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two reliable sources (Reuters and tv press gazette) have been added, many many more could be added - but that would be pointless, and this discussion should return to the article talk - where people are still trying to get "far right" removed despite nearly every report describing them as such! See also recent attempts to get the BNP labelled "left wing". This area needs a lot more eyes. PS that isn't edit warring for technical (not more than 3 in 24hrs) and practical reasons - I added the requested RS in a two edit block. Please report me to WP:AN3 if you disagree, but I'd ask you bring it up on my talk page to see if we can reach a compromise first. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources verify that EDL is a political group. I have brought it here because you are insisting that your consensus of last week cannot be replaced by a fresh consensus in which you did not participate and you will not allow the revised consensus to stand. If you accept the new consensus and are willing to discuss on the talk page then that is clearly the right place, but you cannot keep restoring "your" particular consensus - especially in view of the strength of the new one. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please take your concerns to the article talk page. Verbal chat 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem in doing so if the article is returned to the consensus. The new material which was requested last week and not provided, still fails to advance your opinion that EDL is political and needs wider discussion before being accepted. As will the obvious taut. The status quo is the concensus version. You insisted on reversion to consensus last week regarding "far right" and I agreed. I am asking you to show those of us who disagree with you (about "political" in the lead) the same courtesy. Leaky Caldron 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Following your suggestion to discuss on your talk page you have advised that if I revert the article to consensus you would “think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour”.

Anyone reading this, together with the article talk page and yours, will see that what you accuse me of is completely without substance. Your allegation (that I am promising future disruptive behaviour) is reprehensible. I think you are stepping close to breaching policy on conduct and would urge you to stop and ideally retract that statement. Leaky Caldron 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading. The other editor has stated he wont debate the issue until I remove sourced information. There is also not a consensus for his version, even before the new sources were added. I reverted him once and then added sources and started a discussion on the talk page. I don't see why you have to reply to a post made on my talk page here. Reverting without discussion now sources have been added and a discussion added would be disruptive. I just counted up the opinions on the talk page, and didn't get a majority for removing political. I saw a few "don't care", some "remove right wing" and only two "remove political" - before the sources were added. Now sources have been added that changes the debate again, and discussion should continue. You boldly removed the phrase you are objecting to, for reasons I still don't understand, and I reverted and added new sources. I also started a discussion. Following the WP:BRD process, that discussion should continue. I has been my experiance that Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour (I stated this as the other editor stated they would only return to the debate if I restored his preferred version, and he asked what I would do if he did that himself). Please engage on the article talk page and show a clear consensus there to remove well sourced factual information. Verbal chat 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the benefit of doubt I have refactored the section concerned. It is here [20]. In that section 5 editors concluded that “political” should be dropped. They are: Gabagool, Ghmyrtle, BritishWatcher,Snowded and me. Each one made the comment “support” or “agree”. No editors joined to say they did not agree. You obviously would have and have now done so. 5 editors supported the change which Snowed then implemented, not me.

The new material is not supportive and I’m not obliged to discuss it at anytime, much less when there is a dispute bordering on incivility. Last week you forced a reversion to consensus during the “far right” dispute. I agreed and eventually supported the consensus. Why am I in error following your good example and insisting that the new consensus should be adopted while discussion takes place? Snowded has just made a commendable suggestion and you should consider it. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

⬅Its a content dispute and should not be at ANI. The EDL page is controversial and for some time Leaky C attempted to argue against both the right-wing and the political labels. The claim has not been reduced a bit to accept right-wing but avoid political. Some of us think that the political label is not the most important - it self evidently is political but its not vital to state it. If a direct citation can be found then its use is uncontroversial, for the moment organisation should be good enough. However the history of this article is not good, and Leaky C has been edit warring and using drive by tagging at times. Best to cancel this thing from ANI all together, issue an RFC and let everyone calm down a bit. Its meaningless and unnecessary escalation to bring it here. Oh and Verbal is not edit warring against consensus. I made the change based on a talk page discussion before he had a chance to get involved. He is thus fully entitled to revert it - I was being bold. Leaky C is just wrong there and the blocking threats are silly and provaocative--Snowded ^TALK 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant "now" not "not" (4th sentence). I haven't made block threats - the other user has against me - let's just be clear here. As for consensus - how is 5 editors agreeing something not a consensus? I have not edit warred. I have made 13 edits including tags and have reverted the other user 3 times over 2 separate aspects. Lets not throw stuff around not supported by the facts. I'm no bandit. The other editor has done many more reverts than I have. Leaky Caldron 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually its two editors (of that 5) being prepared to accept a compromise but not agreeing with you, now with some new editors its changing. Whatever, you should not bring basic content disputes to ANI against another editor who acted properly. I was bold (in support of a compromise) they reverted. That is fine, they are allowed to do that. I meant "not", he is not edit warring against consensus he has restored it, as he was not happy with my compromise edit. --Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've brought this up with the user directly and was seemingly unable to successfully explain to them why it is generally unhelpful to "fix" redirects that are not broken (especially en masse and without regard as to whether the redirect might one day become an article - this is explained at the WP:R2D guideline). However, they continue, and often use a misleading edit summary of "Repairing link to disambiguation page". I invite additional scrutiny and comments as to how best to proceed. –xeno^talk 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Using misleading edit summaries is disruptive. Can you provides diffs where the user has done so?--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[21] as an example, but pretty much every edit they make with this edit summary: WikiCleaner 0.96 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help! - as they are bypassing redirects, not doing WP:DPWL work. They are also bypassing redirects on talk pages and in archives (e.g.) which should really never be done. –xeno^talk 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Example: [22]

There is at least one actual disambiguation fix (South Park Elementary), though it's questionable whether it should have been fixed like this, in addition to the redirect bypasses (some just useless like Earshot (Buffy episode) to Earshot (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), some actively harmful like Lunchlady Doris to Springfield Elementary School). If he continues, block him. If this "WikiCleaner" is unable to be set up to not bypass redirects, it needs to be fixed or banned. Popups is a nice replacement that will disambiguate links, and bypass individual redirects when desired, such as on navboxes.

If the triviality of this pop culture example disinterests you, imagine one like Brattleboro and Whitehall Railroad to Central Vermont Railway, where the former is definitely a valid topic for a separate article ([23][24]). --NE2 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your bypassing in this very thread. --NE2 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't use misleading edit summaries on purpose, I just sometimes forget to change the default edit summary (the majority of times my summaries are correct). I don't get Xeno's problem, I am not doing anything wrong. Instead of wasting time attacking me and going around reverting my edits for no reason (which is NOT acceptable, reverting valid edits that improve an article), maybe he could be constructive for once. TJ Spyke 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no vengeance here. You are making edits contrary to the WP:R2D guideline. If these edits have consensus, then the guideline should be changed. –xeno^talk 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's a policy, just a guideline. I see plenty of other people fixing redirects as well, so why you seem to focus on me makes no sense. Even if you disagree with my edits, you have no rights to revert them (and if you do, I have the same right to revert right back, although I have not done this for articles). The only reason you seem to be going after me is because once in awhile I will fix a bunch of articles in a row. As for your earlier comment, the majority of the links won't get separate articles (for example, changing [[Duff Beer (The Simpsons)]] to [[Duff Beer]] or [[Mr. Burns]] to [[Montgomery Burns|Mr. Burns]]. Even though it's just a guideline, I do agree it should be changed so that you would stop complaining. TJ Spyke 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines should still be followed absent a good reason not to. To do otherwise is disruptive.

FYI it's never a good idea to continue with edits under dispute while they're being discussed at ANI.

The Duff beer change is ok (actually beneficial) but these Superintendent Chalmers changes are not. These are exactly the kind of redirects you should not be fixing. Why do you feel redirects need to be fixed in the first place? –xeno^talk 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those 2 examples are moot as the guideline you love some much specifically says that templates are exempt from it (and userboxes are considered templates). As for redirect fixing, it depends on the specific link being fixes. It could be something like making sure it's spelled correctly (fixing Super Mario RPG so that the link goes to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) or episode names (like $pringfield to it's full name). The vast majority of those Simpsons minor characters have consensus to be merged into one article (do you see Scott Christian ever having a article? He's had speaking parts in 2 episodes and both combined are about 6 lines, he hasn't even appeared on-screen in over 10 years). TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The guideline speaks to navigational templates. Userboxes are not, and users may have linked to the redirect for a reason, you should not change it. –xeno^talk 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is not with the edit summaries; it is with the bypassing of redirects. Stop. --NE2 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT delete my comments like you just did, that is vandalism. TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is deliberate. You're 0 for 2. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that you may have read WP:R2D but you don't seem to understand it. "That GUIDELINE says templates ARE allowed to have redirects fix (and userboxes are considered templates)" gives this away; please read it again and understand why bypassing redirects on some templates can be beneficial. --NE2 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. At least while this is still a issue, I will not edit a article just to fix redirects. If I need to edit the article anyways (like to revert vandalism or add to the article), I don't see the harm in doing some other fixes at the same time. As for your last comment, fixing links on templates is allowed, so I will continue on that (especially fixing "D'oh" to "D'oh!". TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The title of the section at WP:R2D, "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken" makes it plain by using quotes around fix that what you consider beneficial fixing is not actually beneficial, so as long as you claim you aren't doing anything wrong by "fixing" things, there is a problem. Sswonk (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not enough. Unless you understand why redirect bypassing is normally bad, do not do any. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are doing something wrong and you've got several users here telling you that. You haven't given any legitimate reason to ignore the guideline other than you want to. In addition you're using misleading edit summaries and editing other people's talk comments and archives which you have no business editing ever, except in a few rare circumstances for things like vandalism, personal attacks, or perhaps someone putting a fair use image on a talk page. The fact that you're continuing with disputed work while a discussion is on-going is rather disconcerting.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please ban this user indefinitely. It is a vandal. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Boovaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 3 edits. After the third edit he recieved a level 2 warning. I don't see any edits after that. With a few exceptions we usually give users a chance to respond to warnings. If he continues he should get a at least a final warning, if not a level 3 warning first. Then if he continues WP:AIV would be the best spot to report.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I post that he earns himself a final warning...---Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked by accident, thinking there had been another edit past the final warning, but unblocked when I saw that wasn't the case. The autoblock is still active -- I figured if they wanted to get in that badly, they could follow the instructions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ali Rana (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yousaf.john (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Skepticfall (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All three of these users are the same person, with Ali being the possible sockmaster. This information was confirmed on IRC through the CU Brandon, who will comment here in a moment to confirm this. Yousaf has been engaging in disruptive page creation, in that they are recreating several wikiproject pages for non-existant wikiprojects that were previously created by the sockpuppet of a banned user, and subsequently deleted per a deletion discussion. I don't know exactly what to make of the other two users' edits, so I would like more eyes upon the situation to better understand what is going on. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The three accounts were found during a different SPI and are  Confirmed . Brandon (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)This comment was mistakenly removed. I have replaced it. It was originally placed by Brandon as seen here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, sorry that was an accident. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Skepticfall is the banned Strider11 (talk · contribs). Nishkid and I got rid of him in March but he comes back everyday because the range is so big. Creates categories everywhere, etc etc, pretty easy. Always fiddles with other Pakistani people's userpages. Also because there isn't a "delete all" button, who wants to delete hundreds of stuff everyday. Paknur (talk · contribs) also comes back everyday, with endless cats and stubs. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, one of his socks created the Pakistani Task Force of WP:MILHIST. The coords have agreed to keep it in any case. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

YM, could you hand out some blocks then, and I can start issuing CSD tags.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Speedy kept. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_(film)_(2nd_nomination) is a bad-faith repost of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_(film), possibly by a long-term abuser. At any rate, this confirms the editor's intent to use the account for abuse only. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Users blocked in both cases. — Jake Wartenberg 01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be brief: could someone block this guy's new sock? Apparently his first account was named "Prvi zdrug" [25], and when he got banned he immediately created a new account called "Prvi zdrug uskrsnuće" [26] ("Prvi zdrug: Resurrection" :). Creative, no? Perhaps an IP range block as well? I think its very likely he'll just create a new sock. ("Night of the Living Prvi zdrug"? ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, one more thing: the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article infobox is being constantly "vandalized" by User:Barlo7 for days and days. I don't know what to do with the guy... at one point I even lost my temper trying to explain how the infobox works. He keeps removing Italy and Germany as predecessor states because he thinks its "insulting to the dead". He also apparently thinks I'm a fascist... :). Anywayz, I tried my best to explain everything [27], didn't work... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This is an ArbCom enforcement matter, and administrator attention is already on the articles. This thread was started as apparent forum-shopping. --Elonka 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be on the receiving end of some exceptionally bold reverts by a group of editors working in collusion. Here's the stub that keeps being reverted to[28] - and here is the product of accumulated research and reliable source references[29]. A number of editors are happy to use alternative forums to ban me[30] and are more than happy to discuss doing me in for g-d knows what perceived sleight[31] -- but none have yet to express any specific objection on the talk page. Have we really gotten to the stage where such well supported good faith and verifiable reliable source edits are dismissed wholesale in favor of a stub without references? An apparently related article had this section [32] added to by me to this stage[33] with a similar experience. I'm genuinely not aware of how my seriously concise and well supported edits could have caused offense - nor has anyone yet to specify a thing. - 99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts would be better directed to answering issues raised at the Talk Pages concerned, instead of this Forum shopping. RashersTierney (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This does appear to be forum-shopping, and I am closing this thread as resolved. Administrator attention is already on the related articles. --Elonka 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP blocked 31h.

This morning I blocked 69.171.160.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism and personal attacks. My talk page has just been (IMHO) vandalised by 69.171.160.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The edit summary was "wow took 5 seconds to circumvent that block". This IP has already had a final warning for vandalism today. Am I now too "involved" to block 69.171.160.55, or should I leave that for another admin to act on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

No, you're not too involved. Block evasion is pretty clear cut. Block away. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gogo Dodo. IP already blocked 31hrs by another admin. (remembering to sign this time lol) Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For the last 2½ weeks or so, editors have been trying to remove links to a blog used as a reference in an article. The blog in question is http://mentalblog.com/ , an apparently defunct, anonymous blog, and the article is Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I brought the issue to WP:RS/N (see Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com), where it seemed the consensus was pretty overwhelming in favor of removal, but two or three movement members are insisting on the article Talk: page that the blog is nonetheless reliable as a source for Schneerson's will, based on their personal knowledge of Schneerson's signature etc. They refuse to allow links to the blog in references to be removed, and revert any such removal within minutes. Since article Talk: page discussion and WP:RS/N discussion appears to have made no impact, I've brought the issue here for wider review. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The assertion made by this editor is incorrect. The main argument is that there is no consensus to remove a source which contains what I and other editors know to be genuine copies of the original. I have explained so in a reply to this editor on my talkpage, please see there as to whether his removal reflected consensus. The blog source removed by Jayjg and restored by me and others is just a PDF copy of two pages from a book. I and others have seen that book, and it is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability. Several editors have reversed his removals and protested against them on the talkpage of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but Jayjg insists he is right and keeps seeking other venues inside Wikipedia (first Wikipedia:RS/N and now WP:ANI) that would justify him, and is overly zealous on this subject (see the length and time frame of the discussions), which is also no appreciated by other editors. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you've seen the book, why not source the book instead of the blog? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser's post above is a perfect example of the issue; the blog is a reliable source because "I and other editors know [them] to be genuine copies of the original." In the same dispute, Debresser has refused to give page numbers for "the book" in question, though he has inserted it as a reference, explaining that he read it years ago, but is sure it contains the material somewhere. His co-members of the movement have insisted—based on their personal assessment of "the book"— that "the book", published by little-known rabbi on an unknown press, is more reliable than books published by a university professor-subject matter expert, on reliable presses. Debresser and a couple of others have refused to accept that Wikipedia is guided by WP:V and WP:RS, not their personal assessments of source reliability. See the RS/N or Talk page discussions for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me lift the relevant part out of the previous paragraph for easy reading: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your lifting words out of context is not appreciated. And nobody has refused to accept any Wikipedia guideline as you assert without any proof. It is just that editors disagree with you as to the reliabilty of certain sources. You seem to have a problem with that. That is not good on Wikipedia, which is based on consensus. And that is the real issue here with you. You just don't have consensus for your removal, as I explained to you on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable. Please explain why the defunct, anonymous blog mentalblog.com is exempt from this rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to enagage in this content-related dispute for the third time. You have had your answers on the talkpage and on that noticeboard. Now please calm down and accept the fact that people disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Calm down"? Please don't speculate about other editors' emotional state. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick to the issue please. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reliable verifiable sources, not what you know to be the truth. Find a suitable source for the information, otherwise it should come out. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We have heard that before. You completely ignore the subject. Which, BTW, reminds me that I do not think this is a post for WP:ANI, since this is subject related. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a behavior issue, since you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N, and continue to edit-war the blog link as a reference into the article.[34][35] Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

People should have the decency not to revert in the middle of a wp:ani discussion. Not after being informed of that, at least. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So stop reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I told you before on my talkpage, your so-called consensus is disputable. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, three members of the movement say it's reliable, 7 uninvolved editors say it's not. Not much that's "disputable" there. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a factual untruth, and ill becomes you. It is sad you have decided to resort to such methods. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I said it wasn't reliable, as did Fiflefoo, Itsmejudith, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Slp1 and Nathan. That's 7 editors who say it's unreliable, none, as far as I know, involved with the Chabad movement. Against that we had you and Zsero saying that the blog was reliable, and Bongomatic wouldn't opine on the issue, saying it was the wrong question/board. So, I don't think my math was that far off, was it? Which part was the "factual untruth"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The part omitting Count Iblis here, Bongomatic, who is clearly enough in favor of keeping the blog, and Yehoishophot Oliver on the talkpage. Squidfryerchef and Itsmejudith are not clearly against on the noticeboard, as far as I understand. All of this are things you conveniently do not mention or alter. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this whatsoever, as I've never even heard of the article prior to this discussion. But I am absolutely flabbergasted that a well-respected editor such as Debresser would even consider trying to claim that personal knowledge is an acceptable source. Blogs are not reliable sources for such material, period, find a reliable source. How difficult is that? Edit warring isn't the way to deal with a sourcing dispute. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the thread. I said "you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N". Count Iblis didn't comment there, nor did Chabad member Yehoishophot Oliver. As for Bongomatic, fortunately we are able to read his exact words on: "A primary source (such as a will) is appropriate in various cases—I am not opining on whether this is such an instance." I have no opinion in this particular case. As for the rest, the words of the individuals are plainly evident from the links I provided. So, yeah, 7 uninvolved editors said it was unreliable, 2 movement members said it was reliable, and 1 editor wouldn't give an opinion. All done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And rightfully so. That is why am I so happy I have not made such a claim. Please read my words carefully. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, what you're missing is that while personal knowledge is not a valid source for facts, it is certainly a valid source for the reliability of sources. What "reliable source" do we cite for the proposition that the NYT is a reliable source? We don't, and we don't have to. The only personal knowledge Debresser and I (and others) are claiming is that the scanned page does indeed appear in the book. -- Zsero (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, since Jayjg has forgotten to do so, I posted at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson that this discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, please read everything carefully, and understand what the issues are. Has any of you had a look at the disputed footnote already? Debresser (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayig is ignoring one crucial fact: the blog is not cited as a source for anything. The will itself is the source; it is a primary source, cited for nothing more than what it says, and for that purpose it is the best possible source. (Secondary sources are only needed for interpretation, not for direct quotes or description.) The blog is simply a URL where a scan of the will can be found, for the reader's convenience. If the will were not to be found anywhere on the web, it would still be just as valid a source, but the reader would not be able to personally verify that it says what the article describes it as saying; linking to the copy at the blog solves this.

The scan itself is obviously genuine, which can be determined by anyone familiar with the subject's signature, which thousands of people are. It is also known to be genuine because it appears in the book which is cited as a source; that's where the blog scanned it from in the first place! Removing the link to the blog cannot possibly make the article better or more useful, and therefore is against the prime WP rule: to make a better encyclopaedia. -- Zsero (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this right: 1-"anyone familiar with the subject's signature" has now become a reliable source. 2-"it appears in the book which is cited as a source", except the cite is to a blog, not to the book, which for some reason the proponents are reluctant to source to. Is this correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the third time: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you had that look at the footnote as recommended? Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion here, but we don't use "convenience" links. We site the reliable source. We don't provide unreliable sources to hold the information as "convenience" because we can't trust that the unreliable source is holding the correct information. You might assert it is, but no other editor can trust that. They are after all, an unreliable source. That means that we sometimes have citations without weblinks and that is fine.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the point - the book exists, and will not be changed. The scan may be accurate now, but it may change later. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How can any .pdf file, which can be created by anybody with minimal forgery, be used as a reliable source? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We must have 100-250-500 thousand PDF sources on Wikipdia, as you well know. So your point of view is untenable. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PDFs found on reliable sources are considered reliable. PDFs found on blogs are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the book and can supply the page numbers required for the source. To be sure the blog is not being used as a source, the source is the book. The question now is if we may link to this blog (which itself is undoubtedly not a reliable source) just for convenience sake. Is that a problem? there are actually many references in articles which link to blogs and private websites, should these also be removed? can we finalize what wikipedia's policy should be for these links (or has it been done already)?

About the book Heshbono shel Olam: It is written by Binyamin Lipkin and published by "Mechon Hasefer". Avraham Alashvili is the head of this Mechon (organization). Lipkin has written another book I know about callad "Al Hakavenet" about the Brooklyn Bridge terrorist shooting and the aftermath. This second book is published by " Hostzaot Toras Chayim" which I believe is well know publisher in Israel. Shlomke (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All that is in the article already, apart from the precise pagenumbers. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In general, blogs are not acceptable sources. You'd have to give specific links as to whether or not the blog is a reliable source. If you have the book, if you sourced the claim to that, it would solve this entire mess. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. we have heard that ad nauseandum already. Debresser (talk)

And yet, for some reason, you are refusing to do the bare minimum needed to end this contretemps. Is it just a matter of bullheadedness, and that it has to be your way or no way? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking about "bullheadiness". For the fourth time: the book is already there as a source. Please leave this discussion... Debresser (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without a dispute about statements made in the source, it is not ok. to remove the source, even if it is a type of source that you would prefer not to use in general. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand which side of this discussion you're endorsing here. But I'm out of this discussion, I don't like beating my head against a wall and it's clear that nobody here is interested in trying to resolve this, they're just interested in getting their way. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you. He says: "keep the blog". As have many before him. Which is my point, that there is no consensus for its removal. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards. Zsero added the blog link on October 1. There was no consensus for its addition. There still is none. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the beginning there was chaos, then... How far do you want to go back? Debresser (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to when the link to the blog was first added. I believe that was on October 1, 2009, by Zsero, was it not? And it was reverted in the very next edit, was it not? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the clear question here is as follows: Why does the blog need to be cited if the content exists in an identical fashion in a book already cited within the article? 100 words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason why I included preprints links in this article and in many other articles: accessibility Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And how do we know that the material on this defunct, anonymous blog is an accurate representation? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog is not anonymous, he has stated his name many times: Tzemach Atlas living in the Boston area. Shlomke (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And what is the problem with it being defunct? Asimov is also "defunct": he is dead. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now inserted the page numbers of Lipkin's book. Those are the same copy's. You and anyone else can check them. I hope this this solves the problem as Who then was a gentleman? suggested.Shlomke (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One would hope, but I have no doubt the blog link will soon be back. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if the issue has been resolved, why shouldn't it? Shlomke (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it has been resolved by providing a (somewhat) better source, so there's no need for the irredeemably unreliable one. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to the blog is a copy to what both sources are discussing, it's not being used as a source, it's there for accessibility. Shlomke (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the discussion at WP:RS/N. Aside from the fact that WP:V and WP:RS specifically exclude these kinds of sites as reliable, the concern raised by seven editors there (and several other editors here) is that we had no reliable source indicating that blog pdf was an accurate representation of anything. Wikipedia editors, btw, don't count as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I've been in similar disputes before and my experience is that what you are doing here is unnecessarily causing a conflict. I think this is as far as you could take it. You could temporarily add the "dubious" tag and then try to get hold of the book or try to contact people who have the book to verify if the PDF file is bona fide. As I understand it, Shlomke has already done that. The problem with remove the link to the blog is that no one has raised questions about about the contents. This will then cause anger. It is a bit similar to how not sticking to AGF causes anger. You are a priori treating a valuable source of information as unreliable, even though it may well be 100% accurate. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you review the consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com, which was exactly the opposite of your position? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You've won me over. Although I do not doubt these particular scans since I'm able to compare them to the book and I see them to be the same, as a rule if this practice were allowed, there would be many fakes on WP as anyone can make any image they want, put it up on a website or blog and claim it is a primary source. I will wait for this discussion to finish before editing. Shlomke (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, from a pure Wiki Law perspective you are right. But then Wikipedia is not based on rules. In this particular case, your objections to the blog link based on only Wiki Law has raised tensions. You can imagine that allowing the blog link for pragmatic reasons here and perhaps in other articles on similar grounds may lead to new rules for potentially unreliable sources. This case is exceptional because we have an editor who has verified that the blog link gives accurate information. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, what you may not know is that even the source this material is allegedly copied from is not reliable. It's a book published by a nearly unknown publisher, written by a rabbi whose only other claim to notability is that he apparently at one time edited a small weekly haredi newspaper. And neither source is even necessary; the article already has links to a reliable book that contains all the necessary information, so there's no need for either the blog pdf or the book it allegedly comes from! So, tell me, what's the point in including them? We already have a reliable source for all the information, so why put in the unreliable ones too? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

About reliability of of Heshbono shel Olam: As pointed out above, it is published by "מכון הספר" ("Mechon Hashefer") a publishing organization run by Rabbi Avraham Alashvili. When doing a google search for "מכון הספר" 289 results come up. There seems to be another org. with this same name that is not connected, but there are still plenty of results for this books publisher. I have a book published by them called "Hefsek B'Tefila" written by Rabbi Yoav Lemberg. The Agudas Chasidei Chabad Library lists them as a publisher in a listing of publishers. About Binyamin Lipkin, I see another book by him called "Al Hakavenet" as mentioned above, printed by Hotzaot Toras Chayim 52,800 results. 40,600 for בנימין ליפקין. No question about reliability. The question is if this source is necessary, especially since we have an English source. But the English source does not have copy's of the will's, which the Hebrew one does. So if an editor is insisting on inserting it, then why not? Shlomke (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "No question about reliability"? Is "Mechon Hashefer" a vanity press? Is it the personal enterprise of Rabbi Avraham Alashvili? Does it have a website? Is there any third-party information about it? Just publishing a few books doesn't immediately make this a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bali ultimate

Bali ultimate is reverting on Menachem Mendel Schneerson, even after he was informed that this is the subject of a wp:ani discussion. In fact he removed my comment rudily from his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose warning this editor that this is unacceptetable. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And you keep reverting him in turn. Do you propose warning yourself too? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to add here every ill thought through comment that pops to mind. Really. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I was reverting to the version from right before this thread, and only his uncvivil edits. Uncivil in that they mix into a discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's the subject of AN/I discussion or not, there is no reason to suspend editing of the article.   pablo_hablo. 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a lack of decency not to await the outcome of the discussion. Perhaps you mean other edits, that are non related? That I agree with. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And it seems everybody else considers leaving it against our policy. Grsz¹¹ 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not considering your personal standards of decency, nor would I, just normal editing practice.   pablo_hablo. 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours for reverting while knowing full well an attempt to resolve the situation was being made here. In my opinion, that is clearly edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. the same will happen to anyone else who reverts, while knowing the situation here (after this message). I will happily unblock Bali is he agrees to join the discussion and stop reverting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More tendentious editing

Here's an example of the kind of tendentious editing that I've been faced with, right in this very thread: I made a comment at 21:22 GMT, referring to "Debresser's post above..." A couple of minutes later, Debresser moves that post below another post of his. Well, of course, at this point my comment "Debresser's post above" no longer makes sense, since it's below a different Debresser post. Despite my moving it back, he moves it under his again, and even changes the indenting, so that it now definitely looks like I'm responding to the second comment, not the first! I try to put it back where it make sense, even explaining in an edit summary that the "Debresser's post above" I refer to is *not* the comment you inserted *after* mine. Nonetheless, he moves my post again, while claiming that I have "no right" to remove his post from its relevant place. This is the kind of topsy-turvy tendentiousness I have to deal with. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's not start a second edit war. Debresser just leave Jayjg's comment where he placed it or I'll have to block you for edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But he is mistaking. There was an edit conflict here, and my reply ended up below his, and out of context. I tried to fix that. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are both correct in that both of your posts refer to the post "above" and thus don't make sense out of order. Unfortunately one has to be out of order and yours technically came second because of the edit conflict. I have added {{ec}} to indicate this, which I suggest is a much better may to "fix" things like this in the future. :) That said, it is not something either of you should have been edit warring over as any intelligent person could figure out which post you guys were referring to form the context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a blog?

A blog is a (generally non-notable) person's personal opinion, posted on a self-published site where the author is the the sole "editorial control". Thus, they are primary sources. When the blog author is an expert, blogs may be used as primary sources, within limits articulated in other policies. Likewise, when a blog belongs to a newspaper or other traditional media who exercises editorial control over the blog, then the blog is acceptable.

In this case, it appears that a PDF copy of a published source, hosted on a blog site, is being criticized solely because it's on a blog site. That's just silly.

• Would the reference be acceptable without the PDF? Sure seems like it.
• Does linking to the PDF help understanding? That seems to be the argument.
• Is there any editorial control exercised by the poster of the PDF? It seems not.

Thus, the real issues seem to be

1. Is this PDF hosted in violation of copyright laws? If so, it should not be linked... but the fact that it is hosted on a blog site has nothing to do with that.
2. Is the PDF a copy of a vanity press book, rather than an RS book selected and edited with appropriate editorial control? If so, then it should be limited to use as an unreliable source.

And yes, ANI is a silly place for this. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, what would make the blog author an expert? Shlomke (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has been cited and published as such. If an individual is constantly cited or interviewed on a subject, they can be considered an expert on it. We let reliable sources determine who are experts and who are not. Their self-published sources are usable only in the context of what they are an expert on. So someone who is constantly interviewed about military policy might be an expert on military policy but if he wrote a post about how his Toyota is a piece of crap we couldn't cite him on that.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are a recognized academic expert in a field, who has published in third-party reliable sources on the subject. Deborah Lipstadt, for example, who is an expert on Holocaust denial, has a blog, which one could cite (with caution) on the topic of Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do they have to be an academic to be an expert? I think not. Shlomke (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they have to be published and recognized as such. Their personal qualifications are immaterial if reliable sources are referring to them and using them as experts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no evidence that the person hosting that PDF hasn't altered it or won't alter it in the future. That is why we don't link to it. An unreliable source holding "reliable" information isn't usable. Cite the reliable source. We don't use convenience links because we can't trust them. They can cite it without the blog link and its perfectly fine.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Then should every Google Books link to content be removed? After all, Google isn't a reliable source. Your argument assumes bad faith on the part of the non-RS, that it would falsify material. If the blog site claims to reproduce a verbatim copy of a copyrighted RS document, the primary issue is copyright. If it's fair use, it would then fall to the person who challenges its veracity to demonstrate that the offline RS doesn't say what a (potentially) unreliable RS says. Your interpretation would provide the torturous outcome that I can claim an offline RS says XYZ and not be subject to challenge except through someone going to get a copy of the offline source, but that someone else can claim an offline RS says XYZ, cite a PDF of an allegedly verbatim copy on an unreliable website, and the document link can be challenged, but not the content of the assertion. That's just silly. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think falsification is the suspicion standing behind the policies. And this has been mentioned on the talkpage before. That a suspection of falsification is not acceptable as an argument, unless there exist specific reasons to suspect so. Debresser (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the blog isn't reliable is enough to make the copy suspect. A source which isn't reliable is unreliable by wikipedia's standards and we simply cannot link to it in a citation, because it isn't the source. The book/original document is the source.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this can be an interpretation fo wp:rs. I find it hard to agree with this interpretation though. And with me other editors involved in this discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to compare Joe blogger to google a public organization? The problem with the document link isn't whether or not you or I believe the document has been falsified, its that the average reader of wikipedia has no way of knowing who this blogger is and where these pages came from. It becomes a crutch and it misleads the reader into thinking the reliable source is the linked documents and not what is actually being sourced. Google is a public company and depending on what goes on behind google books, there could be a case made to consider what they scan and publish on to be reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jclemens, it's silly this ended up here. It started on the article Talk: page, then moved to the RS/N board, where 7 people said it was an unreliable source (against the two editors who kept inserting it). When those two editors insisted that there still wasn't really a consensus against inserting it, it moved here, because that's pretty much the next logical step. While one could argue that it was initially—in part—a content dispute, once the RS/N consensus was clear, it became an issue of inappropriate behavior; see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing, which describes this behavior pretty exactly (particularly "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability" and "Rejects community input"). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's looking for a wider audience (sometimes denigrated as "forum shopping"). I've seen far too many "we can't cite blogs" rote arguments, without understanding the basis for such an argument in the actual policies like V, N, and RS. I am not speaking to conduct issues, but failing to take an unreasonable answer and walk away is not disruptive editing. Frankly, I'm unimpressed with the responses in this section. You may all be ticked off at the guy for bringing it here, but calm down, have a nice cup of WP:TEA, and think through the policy bases for the exclusion of such a link. It's not as strong as the level of consternation would imply. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The one forum shopping is Jayjg, who started out on the talkpage, met unanymous disagreement, continued on the noticeboard to get support, and now came to WP:ANI to get it enforced. Isn't the talkpage where it should be decided what should and should not be in the article in this specific case? I find it interesting, that on the talkpage all editors apart from Jayjg want to keep the blog, while on the noticeboard almost all are against keeping the blog (counting again Jayjg with those against and the people who came from the article talkpage as in favor). It does suggest to me that those who know what they are talking about have a better understanding of the issue than outside noticeboards (that are notorious for being frequented by their respective hardliners). Debresser (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any forum shopping. It is perfectly reasonable to go to the reliable sources noticeboard for the review of a source. And no, the talk page of the article is not where it should be decided if a source is reliable or not, as not many editors would see the discussion, and it is prudent in such a discussion that uninvolved editors are present for the obtaining of consensus. Lastly, seeing as how you are so steadfast in refusing to abide by WP policy regarding reliable sources, he brought the discussion here for enforcement. Perfectly reasonable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Going there is reasonable in general, but in this case, where there was unanymous disagreement on the talkpage, that was forumshopping. Then trying to enfore his opinion by coming to WP:ANI, even though there was no clear consensus (although I agree a certain majority shares his opinion) was incorrect. I'm unwatching this discussion. If there will be any things that concern me personally, please contact me on my talkpage. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By "unanymous disagreement on the talkpage", you must mean the three Chabad members who seemed to be unaware of or uninterested in WP:V and WP:RS. Taking an RS issue to the WP:RS/N board is not "forum shopping", it's recommended procedure. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The agreement of three editors does not give you rights to do whatever you want with a page. It was not, nor will it ever be forum shopping for Jay to have gone to RSN and here.

Agreement on an obscure article by most of the only editors that edit it does not give them the right to walk over policy. If that was the case, then several thousand articles that have been previously deleted wouldn't have been. I shouldn't have to explain why.

Secondly, there was clear consensus at RSN. Three dissidents who were trying to control the article don't count. Only uninvolved editors count in the matter, and consensus among those uninvolved editors was that the sources were not reliable. Consensus doesn't require that the original dissidents agree with everyone else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

When you say clear consensus, do you mean about the blog or the book? Shlomke (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blog.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Book

• We have two issues. #1 is the book reliable? Bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I suspect it is not. #2 is a link the to blog of a copy of the page unacceptable? Assuming that the book is found to be a reliable source, we have often linked to scanned copies of a page. Often. I'd say cite the book and provide the link. If the book isn't a reliable source, it might be reasonable to mention the book if a RS has discussed or at least mentioned the book. Otherwise, out it goes. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just put it in external links. Per WP:ELMAYBE, external links can include, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Really, you're not trying to use it as a reference, because you already have a reference (the book). So put it in an external links section. Assuming that the copyright issues mentioned are found to not be a problem. -- Atama頭 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, although if the goal is to let people find the will that might make it a bit harder. Ah well, it seems reasonable and within our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I already brought the book to the RS/N noticeboard. Unsurprisingly, the consensus of uninvolved editors there was that it was not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sanctions the community can take against editors why say blatant lies in WP:ANI discussions? Because if so, this is the time, and this is the man. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • The consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com was mainly about using the blog as a reference (vs linking for accessibility which we are discussing here), not about the book. I've added additional information above about the reliability of the book which I think would make the book pass. Do you suggest I put that information there too (even though that was not the intention of that notice, as the name suggests), or perhaps start a new discussion? Shlomke (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd suggest starting a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I will leave it to those who want to use the book as a second reference. I'm fine either with or without it. Shlomke (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Jclemens touched on a good point above that no one seems to be discussing. Ignoring the fact whether this blog should be used a "convenience" for a WP:RS (which I personally think is ridiculous), if copies of pages of the book are copyrighted, we shouldn't be linking to them. Period. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• We link to material that is under copyright all the time. Sometimes to nyt.com. Sometimes to archive.org or googlebooks. As long as the selection we are linking to is legal (under the fair use doctrine) I think we are fine. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the blog is a violation of copyright. In that case, we wouldn't link to it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye. For example, we might link to an official site with a film trailer on it; we wouldn't link to a site with a pirated copy on it. Black Kite 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we might (and do) link to other sites that (for example) make fair use quotes of copyrighted material. And we often link to archive.org for copyrighted material that is no longer available on the original site. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the blog would not be in violation of copyright, because the will's in the book are not the original work of the author, they are copy's of the Rabbi's will's (perhaps public info?) Shlomke (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Above when giving some detailed facts, you wrote "why not?". It seems to me that Jayjg and everyone else should ask this question. It's time to write up a new wiki policy WP:Why not?, an extention of WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not? becuase linking to this blog does several things, it gives the impression that the blog or the author of the blog are some kind of reliable source, it also drives traffic to a random blog. Allowing these kinds of links would not only imply credibility to unreliable sources they would end up being used to host content just to get traffic from wikipedia as holding convenience links. We currently don't have anyway to differentiate between a reliable source and a convenience link and I'm completely against putting any kind of unreliable source in a position to masquerade as a reliable one.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There's a reason we have WP:V and WP:RS. Heck, we're not even supposed to link to blogs as external links; see WP:ELNO, number 11. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a link to a blog, is it? It's a link to a document being hosted at a web site that also hosts a blog. Now, I agree that the blog itself isn't a reliable source, but a link to the document should be allowable per WP:ELMAYBE if it's not being used as a reference. -- Atama頭 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can host anything on a website. Is that website a reliable source? Its not a citation unless its being hosted by a reliable source. Otherwise we're giving credibility to random websites, blogs, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, my comment "why not" above was not about linking to the blog, it was about using the book "Cheshbono Shel Olam" as an additional reference. See above. I'm basically in agreement at this point with what you and Jayjg are saying. I would like to see what the final consensus is on this issue and apply it to similar situations in the future.Shlomke (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. If the talk from RS/N is properly quoted, then it would seem like the majority support not linking it, which has in the past been the agreement I've always worked under.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Admin has been admonished for placing a controversial block, using the wrong block settings, and failing to notify the blockee. Next time discuss controversial blocks in advance. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Beeblebrox#User:Nipple37 for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would also appreciate feedback over whether this constitutes wheel warring or not as that is also a disputed point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not. Even if a declined block counts as an administrative action, someone has the right to revert it. (Now if somebody reverted over that, it might be a wheel war, depending on the first premise.) See WP:WHEEL. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not wheel warring. There is only one administrative action done afaict with respect to this account. Syrthiss (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. (still it would've been nice if they'd discussed it with me before blocking, but I see how it does not constitute wheel warring) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not technically wheel warring, but also a fairly bad block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Wheel warring, however I disagree with the block At least wait till (s)he edits and then discuss the name on their talk page?--SKATER ^Speak. 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something technical here... but is this really hardblocking? They are blocked with autoblock active, and with account creation blocked. IIRC that means that if they try to access the wiki with the account it will also autoblock the ip for 24 hours, and that they cannot create another user account while logged in with this account. If they come back after 24 hours autoblock as their bare IP shouldn't they be able to create an account if they wanted to? Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of a moot point in this case; the block was 10-11 hours ago. After being blocked for this long, much less with no explanation, I doubt they'll ever return. HalfShadow (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not wheel-warring, though I think the rule needs work and have brought this up in the past. It is so, but a bad block in my view, unless little cloth coverings for piano legs are on their way back. This is 2009. Nipple is not an offensive word. It just is not. I don't even think nipple was, back in the day, but certainly it is not such a word today. Even John Ashcroft probably wouldn't have a problem with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Anthony Comstock? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Between here and my talk page, it is apparent that there is a strong consensus that this was an overly harsh block. Although the damage is likely already done, I think it would be a good idea for some uninvolved admin to undo or at least reduce the block. That is, unless Rschen would care to acknowledge this consensus and undo it themselves... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was an over-reaction, especially the hardblocking. Changed to a softblock; see User talk:Nipple37 for my message. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a softblock in this situation is "That's not how I'd do it, but I wouldn't override it" sort of thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad block all around. Toning it down to a softblock and leaving an explanatory message on the user's talk page is a step in the right direction but blocking these sorts of things on sight is a hypersensitive reaction to what might be offensive. This is precisely the sort of scenario in which engaging the editor personally is the proper way to go about things. At this point there isn't much to be done about it, however; the damage is done. Shereth 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious what ought to be done about, but equally obvious that nobody's got the balls to do it. The block should be reversed, the blocking admin given a serious talking to, and if (s)he persists with these kinds of blocks then (s)he should be summarily desysoped. Easy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with "The block should be reversed".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too soft. Administrators who make blocks like these chase editors away, when they ought to be chased away themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Malleus, I left my Draco (lawgiver) hat someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. I found my uniform though. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked, left welcome message fwiw. Hope all parties are okay with this course of action, and hopefully all is settled. Let me know if not. -- Samir 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm rather disappointed in rschen for blocking User:Ádmins masturbate to linux recompiles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMFAO! Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Samir. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh, he should at least be told to change his name? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Why? Everyone else says that it is fine. Keegan (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nipple 37 might be a half inch galvanized pipe fitting in bin 37. Even if it refers to an anatomical nipple, there is still nothing wrong with it. It will be disturbing to some who have body-taboos, but the wp:NOT-censored is pretty important. *shrug*- Sinneed 21:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what you need to understand about this. Nobody but you sees this name as even marginally offensive. If it was User:I bite nipples or User:Showmeyournipple you'd have something, but there is no context here that makes it offensive. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there were people on your user talk who could see asking him to change the name. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning, User:Penis is acceptable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And by a "no body parts" reasoning, User:BigToe43 is unacceptable? There's a difference between a penis and a nipple. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And a difference between a nipple and a big toe. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really -- you see both of them exposed on every single beach in the world. Granted, you only see about half as many nipples as big toes...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict)If somebody is such a dim-wit that they want to be called Penis (talk · contribs) all the (idiotic) power to them. It's just a piece of anatomy. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• This admin needs to be whacked with a trout. Right on the nipples. HalfShadow (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm finding ironic here is that if they hadn't come to my talk page and made an issue of it, I probably wouldn't have noticed the block at all since I had declined to block it already. And if they hadn't rejected the arguments of everyone on my talk page and said I should report it here, I probably wouldn't have done that either. What's next my friend? Would you like to go to RFC or ArbCom with this? How far do we have to go before you will acknowledge that you made an error? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't acknowledge that I made an error because I honestly don't believe that I made one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ok, how about "acted against consensus?" I think it should be abundantly clear that you did by now, given that there is unanimous agreement that the block was an overreaction. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus at that point when I made the block. I still believe that the username is grossly inappropriate. Do I believe it's worth bringing it any higher? I don't have the time for that (picking my fights carefully). But I refuse to admit that I made a mistake when honestly, I don't believe I made one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't serious about ArbCom, but it's important that you understand why so very many users object to this block, whether you agree with them or not, and that you not be so hasty to instantly hardblock such cases in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You hardblocked for a username offence. Really, unless the name is "Killallniggers" (which does warrant an instant permanent block) you discuss first, and block as a last resort. (Of course, if the person goes on to edit and is a vandal you're in luck, because it's easy to block them then. ) And when you block you give a soft block, with a link to username policy, and ask them to come back with a different name. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said. At around the same time this was reported last night there was a user with "kkk" in their name. At first there was nothing solid tying them to the Klu Klux Klan, so I held off and watched for a few minutes, and bam, they made several racist edits inserting the initials "KKK" into Black Panther Party among others, and I could justify blocking them as a vandal and an inappropriate name. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this so hard for Rschen7754 to understand? Is he a new or inexperienced administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been an admin since 2005. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you have no excuse for your poor judgement and response here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lets face it, if something has 37 nipples, chances are it's a steam locomotive Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And still Rschen doesn't give up [36]. I'm sorry, but this is seriously in need of a trouting. As a woman, I'm actually getting quite offended that someone could find nipples so offensive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We all have nipples Elen, even us blokes. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thinks...actually, I do know this. Duh! That makes it even dafter. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the rules ought to be changed so as not to allow any body part to be used in a username. After all, there are (apparently) many who find even feet to be erotic, although I just find them to be smelly. Perhaps best to make everyone have randomly generated usernames, like User:Ahgfditr76. That way the only other editors likely to be offended are those who speak gibberish, like ... well, fill in your own name here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest...as a user, after reading this thread (and seeing the notice at the top of User Talk:Rschen7754 I will have a hard time accepting that this admin considers any position other than their own, and doesn't have the ability to admit they made a mistake. This makes me very nervous as nobody is perfect and even the most experienced admin will make mistakes from time to time. An admin should be held to a higher standard, and have the maturity and judgment to accept when they have made a mistake, and attempt to rectify that mistake instead of just digging the hole deeper and deeper. Frmatt (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what you say, I believe that we should all be held to the same standard, whether we're admins or not. The problem wikipedia has to face is that at present regular editors are held to a higher standard than administrators. But I digress. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus on that one.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Malleus. This is a pretty disappointing situation as both a user and a person with nipples.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and say what I lot of people are implying or at least thinking: Someone who as hardheaded as Rschen shouldn't be an admin. How many valuable contributors has he chased away with his overzealous blocks? How many people have left the project in part due to his rude comments and I'm always right attitude? This kind of behavior is not acceptable from an average user, let alone an admin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Reviewing Rschen's admin log, I see he always hardblocks everyone & never templates any of them. Some of these people shouldn't have been blocked at all, and barely any all hard block worthy. Every single one deserved messages explaining the problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say they are the most stubborn admin I have ever come across, and I'm staggered by their continuing denial that there's any problem on their side. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• There's an identical situation in the blocking of Nipples63. No contribs whatever, indef hardblocked, no message informing them of the block. It seems this is not an isolated incident, and we have an admin who is out of touch with current policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardheadedness is not an admin criteria, and isn't everyone in different ways? Sure I don't agree with the "I'm always right" attitude, but lately there are a lot of so-called "noobs" or disruptive editors driving down Rschen's skull. Remind me to bring this up when it happens again.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 00:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... and in the meantime let's push it under the carpet. Quite typical. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user could select another user ID and try again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just like many, if not most, blocked users already do. The problem isn't with this user, it's with this administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user knew that name would be trouble. There was nothing wrong with the block, although it might have been better to wait and see what (if anything) he intended to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the user chose that name in order to stir up controversy, then he succeeded. I, for one, was looking forward to seeing what he would upload to his user page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's sad that we've let that user win. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's even more sad that you still don't 'get' what you've done wrong here. You actually physically embarrass me. HalfShadow (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice there isn't anything on User talk:Rschen7754 about this. It seems that some pretty serious problems have been brought up regarding this administrator; not only of this block, but of their general blocking practice. It seems he always uses hardblocks, and fails to notify the blocked users? I'm not sure what would be a good example of a problem of similar degree that an ordinary editor might have, but it seems like that editor would at least get a "formal" warning for it. Blocking is serious stuff. It's a sensitive issue and can drive people away. We need to watch this person, and when it happens, it must be determined whether or not he's aware that he screwed up. If he's in disagreement on that, further actions may need to be taken. Equazcion (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy to review administrators if a concern is brought up like this. This username is obviously one example, but ThaddeusB brings up a potentially troubling series of actions by this admin. I would rather have this dealt with immediately than wait until another violation happens. I see and respect Mitch32's point, but an inability to remain civil, follow policy and procedure, and to always AGF until proven that there is bad faith involved indicates to me a serious question of impartiality by the admin. I will admit that I have edited in frustration, and freely admit that I am not always civil, but I do admit when I'm wrong (this being a perfect example!) I'm starting to feel that this is not necessarily the place for this conversation as it is no longer simply about the block, but has become more about this admin's record on the name policy. But...I could be wrong on this one too!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frmatt (talk • contribs)

Response from the person

Wow, I go to class and come back and find this mess. Rather than mess with indenting, I'll try to write a summary here:

• I find the username User:Nipple37 offensive and believe it inappropriate to be used as a username on Wikipedia. I cannot back down on that opinion.
• That being said, it is not my intent to wheel war over it.
• Some concerns have been presented regarding my UAA blocks. Honestly, after this debacle, I'm staying away from UAA for a while.
• As far as my comment on the was-blocked user's talk page, I was fully within my rights as an editor to make those comments. Does an editor have to follow comments like that? No. Just as I can make comments on anybody's talk page. I believe Malleus Fatuorum should not have made the revert. That being said, I won't readd the comments; it prevents further fighting, and I think the user may have a clue that their username has been called into question.
• The colored box on my user talk page relates to users complaining about their pages being deleted. Occasionally there is a legitimate complaint, and I will be happy to address those. However, whenever I make a journey into CAT:CSD I get messages saying "WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE!@@#$#$~??" for the next few days, complete with excuses as to why their page should exist. This is an attempt to cut down on that. This is a reason why I don't go into CSD anymore.
• If anyone has other complaints regarding my adminship of nearly 4 years, please bring them to me and I will be happy to address them. I do have a midterm tomorrow and a homework assignment that I have done very little of due tomorrow, so there could be delays. I am on IRC on #wikipedia-en-roads, and I have a user talk page and have email enabled. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you a very simple question. What is it about the username Nipple37 that you find offensive, as you seem to be in a minority of one on this issue? What's offensive about the number 37? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• It refers to body parts that sometimes are not appropriate to be displayed. These parts also have a sexual connotation. The question about the number 37 is not constructive. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I see. So you're a puritanical prude not yet out of school who intends to hardblock anyone who doesn't share your tight-assed view on life. Got it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The above comment is inappropriate and personalizes a policy discussion. I recommend its retraction or redaction. It appears to be highly unhelpful and counterproductive. —Finn Casey * * * 06:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Be nice to the user, as he's apparently a bit calory-challenged: His user ID, roughly translated from the vulgar Latin, means "Badly Overweight". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I randomly checked some of the hardblocked users. Of those that had a couple edits before being blocked, about half appeared to be in good faith. This clearly demonstrates that people with questionable usernames can be good faith. It is not really surprising that people unfamiliar with Wikipedia might create bad names in good faith - after all on many websites one's username is rarely or never displayed anywhere. (Even ignoring that several of the names weren't clearly offensive to begin with.) By hardblocking these people you prevent them from creating a legitimate name as autoblock will prevent them from re-registering. By not informing them of the problem, they will remain ignorant of what happened, and may well assume Wikipedia is a place filled with tyrants and never return. If you are not willing to take 15 seconds to template a blocked username, let someone else do the blocking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What good is templating User:I HATE WIKIPEDIA AND WANT TO VANDALIZE EVERY SINGLE PAGE3432424156246246!!!!!!!!? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we deal with an actual username you hardblocked w/o explanation rather than some theortical name. User:BATSHITDOOLAYODAJA's only edit was this: [37] - not the best edit in the history of the world, but clearly a good faith attempt to improve the article. I do not question that their username was inappropriate, but since you didn't bother to explain why they were blocked they will likely never edit again. Even if they figure out the block was b/c of their username, they won't be able to create a new account because of autoblock. Because you couldn't spare 15 secs to drop a template, we've likely lost this editor for good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Regarding the comment on their talk page, you may have been within your rights as an editor, but when you make a comment like that as the blocking admin, it can seem unduly authoritative to the user.
• Part of using the tools is dealing with individual complaints, many of them repetitive. Your red box remark amounts to "my decisions are final", which they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't be saying it. Besides which, if you don't handle CSD anymore, there should be no more need for that box.
• I find lots of things offensive on Wikipedia, and can do nothing about them. Just because you have the tools to do something doesn't mean you're allowed to. Offense is not a reason to act. Policy is. Equazcion (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have rephrased the part of the box you refer to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To rschen7754: I have three questions, all of which are sincere:

• You seem to be saying that your personal definition of "offensive" should be more important than consensus. Why, specifically, do you think that your definition is superior?
• Why, specifically, did you not communicate with the user before hard-blocking him? (And the answer is not "it was offensive". That's why you blocked the user. my question is why you didn't communicate with him or her first.
• Which outcome would be worse for the encyclopedia: you receiving a number of unfortunate comments on your talk page, or a new user abandoning the project because his article was inappropriately speedily deleted and there was no obvious way to get help?

Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

At the point I hardblocked, there was no consensus that I could see on the matter. Consensus is a large factor in my not reblocking.

But why did you jump to the conclusion that the word "nipple" was offensive? That is what I cannot, cannot understand in this. I'm sorry, I suspect it's obvious to you, but "nipple" is not that offensive. Really, no: it's not. And the idea that it is so offensive that a user who has that username has to be a vandal? Is so far in left field I can't even understand it.

Typically users who use "Nipples" in a username are disruptive and just going to vandalize.

Can you provide diffs showing that people with that word in their username are particularly prone to vandalism? If not, it's just your assumption, based on your personal (and I'm sorry to say, idiosyncratic) idea that the word "nipple" is inherently horrible and could only be used in order to shock or disgust. It's simply a body part.

Well, what answer do you want? Is there any way to say otherwise? My question is, is the scenario that you describe likely to happen?

--Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it can happen, and I've seen it happen a dozen times. Imagine a new user who doesn't know about the sandbox or user pages. Now imagine them building an article, saving it as he goes, but he hasn't got to the point where he's added the references. Suddenly in between his saves the article is speedily deleted. Then he goes to the closing admin's user page and finds a comment like yours. He'd probably think he had been run out of Dodge by an admin who won't lift a finger to help if he asks for it. Put yourself in a new user's position and remember that your words may seem harsher and more arrogant on the page than you mean them to be. --NellieBly (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well good grief! I really do think you should stay well clear of WP:UAA if you find the word "nipple" offensive. For a little perspective, check out our very own article on the subject. There's actually nothing that could be construed as salacious or 'offensive' there. It talks about lactation, breastfeeding, areolae - even 'male nipples'. I seriously think you massively overreacted here but what really concerns me now is your obstinacy to recognize that you may be somewhat ... unique ... in this perspective and against the clear opinion of so many others, can see no issue with using admin tools in enforcing your opinion on newb editors. Not good in an admin> I need to know that you're not going to drop the almighty banhammer again for something as trivial as this. As someone else points out, watchlist the marginal cases and wait for them to step out of line - then act - Alison ^❤ 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, there's obviously some limit to how offensive I find the word nipple if I'm typing it in right now. I don't believe it appropriate in a username however. But you miss the point - when I blocked, there was no consensus against my position. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes there was, it just wasn't demonstrated. We can't convene a committee prior to every administrative action. That's why we have to carefully choose people to trust with tools who can make adequate judgments on their own. Your capacity to make those calls is being called into question. Equazcion (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) You've not commented on the suggestions that you massively overreacted, nor have you answered my concern regarding your not doing it again. Yes, there was nothing voiced against your position at the time as nobody but you and the blockee were aware of it. This is separate to the matter of consensus, which clearly existed before you acted. IMO, you're not addressing the concerns here now in any meaningful way - Alison ^❤ 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, the admin made a decision. Consensus disagreed and the admin has agreed to abide by the consensus. While I personally agree with the consensus viewpoint, I would greatly prefer that the public flogging be done via a webcam, as I just can't see the blood fly on wiki. Manning (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'd prefer is a little bit of honesty, not administrators closing ranks over issues like this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any "closing of ranks". The arb made a decision he believed (and still believes) was correct. Nearly everyone else (including me) disagreed and the arb has fully cooperated with the consensus viewpoint. We are not (and cannot be) required to all agree with each other. We ARE required to not be disruptive and abide by consensus. As this admin has done just that, then there is nothing more to discuss. Manning (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that this administrator even recognises that his block was wrong, much less agreed not to do something similar in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please (re?)read the thread. There is far more going on here than a mistake on one username. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus in this particular incident. But as someone pointed out this has occurred in more than on incident which often points to a larger problem. The sarcasm doesn't aid in discussing that issue. Instead it looks like someone trying to brush the discussion under the carpet. If there is a defense for his behaviour in these cases or you agree with him hard blocking without any templating, then you should make that point without the sarcastic attempts to shut the discussion down. There seem to be concerns raised about this incident, further incidents and the tone on the talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin is under NO requirement to admit he was wrong. He believes he was correct and he is perfectly entitled to do so. He IS however required to acknowledge that his viewpoint is not the consensus viewpoint and to thus abide by the established consensus from here onwards. This has been done to my satisfaction at least. Manning (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Where has that been done? I haven't seen that. Though I may have missed it. Equazcion (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you're rather too easily satisfied. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

what now?

Honestly... what more do you want? I am not going to copy and paste a statement saying that I admit my guilt, because I do not believe my decision was wrong. But I have said repeatedly that I will not make UAA blocks for a while, and I am leaving this user in question alone. If you want to see my judgment, how about looking at all the stuff I did right, for a change? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of hardblock: wrong. Hypersensitivity to usernames: wrong. Not templating: wrong. I don't want a signed confession in blood here but I'd at least like to see some sort of acknowledgement of these three basic issues here. All of them are really bad practice for an admin. Staying away from UAA is a good thing, IMO, but can you see how the rest is problematic here? In particular, I have a major issue with the redlinked talkpage. It's not okay to simply stick the template in the block message and it's not okay to block ACB for anything other than the most blatant cases. ACB is too harsh for most username probs - Alison ^❤ 02:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Alison, but this adds to what she said) I'm not all that comforted, personally. If you don't understand why this was a bad block, what happens when you start making UAA blocks again? I don't even see this as a problem that's necessarily confined to UAA blocks. You could take undue offense to other things and find them just as blockable, and I'm also concerned that the not informing users of important things (like their having been blocked) would also carry into other areas. But that's just me, I don't want to speak for everyone else. Equazcion (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we really having this conversation? If you don't trust my judgment, your only option is to go to ArbCom right away. You can't just give good judgment to someone. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we're really having it. I'd (we'd?) prefer to engage you in an open discussion, to determine the likelihood of this or something similar happening in the future. You don't seem too thrilled with the prospect of taking criticism to heart or subsequently easing our minds though. Equazcion (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... and if it turned out that I had bad judgment, ArbCom would need to deal with it anyway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt in your mind that many believe your judgement to have been poor. Repeatedly. Why is that? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I personally think societal sensitivity to the topic is peculiar and backward, but I would happen to agree that selecting it as a username is probably not the best judgment. I would agree that a block (let alone a hardblock) is probably not the best response. But I also agree with User:Manning Bartlett that the ongoing flogging is not productive. Are there additional hardblocks that need to be softened, or blocks that need to be removed altogether? If not, then I don't see anything further that can be addressed at this noticeboard. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say at least 90% of Rschen's blocks should have been soft blocks and 99% templated, but the damage has already been done. These people aren't going to randomly log back on weeks later and see the message. What I want to see is 1) an agreement not to hardblock for username except in extreme circumstances and 2) an agreement to template blocked usernames. Neither of these things have been done. The current promise to "stay away for awhile" moves the problem into the future instead of solving it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

^What Thaddeus said. Though I wouldn't mind seeing template notices for all future blocks. Equazcion (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now it sounds like you are asking us to take this issue to ArbCom instead of coming to a reasonable compromise here in open conversation. Do you really think that you are so right that ArbCom would uphold what you've done, and are you ready to run the risk that you would end up desysoped? I've looked at your contributions and for the most part you make good edits, so why are you being so stubborn on this issue? Why not take the compromise that ThaddeusB just offered, admit that you were wrong in your actions regarding usernames, and lets just move on? Frmatt (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer Arbcom over vigilante justice. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Call it what you like, but the community is trying to compromise with you. You're pretty much saying you want to retain your right to hardblock people, and to block without adding template notices, and if we don't like that we'll have to take it to ArbCom. If that's the case, I'm not seeing any other choice. Equazcion (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I only don't template my hardblocks and block evasion blocks. I template everything else. And I've practically given up my hardblock right, since I said I wasn't doing UAA for a while, and I dunno where else you can hardblock. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"for a while" doesn't solve anything, see Thaddeusb's comment above. No one wants to go to ArbCom, it's a lot of typing. We'll do it if need be, but how about this compromise? Would really make it easier on everyone. Equazcion (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think ArbCom would take the case? (Background: I have been involved in 2 cases before. I know what it is like. ) --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy for you, two for me also. It sounds like you're trying to use the fear that arbcom won't take the case as leverage to continue doing what you like despite the community's opinion. Equazcion (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... I said I was staying away from UAA. What more do you need? You want me to resign, don't you? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps stay away from newbies altogether? You don't seem to understand what it means to not bite them, despite that you're okay at other areas of adminship. rspεεr (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had concerns brought to me before in the roads area, and I am working on being more friendly to them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he said about 9 paragraphs back exactly what he wanted to see, and "resign" was not in the list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know as well as everyone else here that ArbCom doesn't take cases this obvious, so don't hide behind them. Just admit you made a bad block, upon the realization that you are the only person here who is offended by the word "nipple", and back down. rspεεr (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... in summary, no, no, and no. I'm willing to let this go and end the discussion, but *some people* won't let it end... --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If your intent is to end the discussion with the firm conviction that the way you handle newbies is appropriate... no, it's not actually acceptable for it to end that way. We have policies about this that are more important than your reaction to the word "nipple". rspεεr (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Newbies" with disruptive names and who vandalize. Yes, it's appropriate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So every single person you blocked was an incorrigible vandal? It seems others have already refuted that idea. rspεεr (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2...because you refuse to recognize that consensus is against you here, and just staying away from UAA for a while and then going back to exactly the same pattern of behavior is not going to work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case this discussion doesn't end up getting anywhere, Rspeer (and anyone else who knows), please enlighten me, if ArbCom doesn't take "obvious" cases, then what exactly happens to those "obvious" cases? When it's so "obvious", can we simply ask a crat to de-op based on a community discussion? Equazcion (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I've never seen an admin hold out as an "army of one" for this long before. rspεεr (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The block was maybe not handled as well as it could have been, but it was appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to your opinion, but nearly everyone who weighed in here seems to feel otherwise, save for the blocking admin. Equazcion (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why, because supposedly we have rules against provocative user ID's. Now, if he didn't have a proper signature, then you'd want to block him for "disruption". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the hardblock riled people up more than anything. It's banning the user based on his or her choice of username. Evil saltine (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it could have been handled better. Typically a user with a provocative name is intent on provoking. It would have been interesting to see what sort of "contributions" that editor would have made and/or given them a chance to defend themselves. Or still could do, now that it's unblocked (pardon the ironic dairy-related metaphor). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly concur with Baseball Bugs. The user name in question was clearly provocative. While many users evidently find the name unoffensive, current policy deprecates the use of borderline names where even a minority might be offended, as they unnecesarily distract from the encyclopedia-buidling project. Regarding the "everyone disagrees with the blocking administrator" comments above, it is important to remember that a local majority at this noticeboard (of perhaps five or so editors) does not override consensus policy, which the blocking admin appears to have appropriately understood (albeit with imperfect execution). Thanks to all for the good editing, —Finn Casey * * * 05:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Finn and Bugs miss the point: A bad username combined with poor edits (even just a few) is uncontroversially blockable. And you've blocked a vandal, for vandalizing (with a bad username as part of the evidence), rather than blocking a newbie who might have been wanting to help the project but who picked a dumb username. Saying "they can pick a new name and try again" misses the hardblocked, account creation blocked part of the block. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the intensity of this discussion, why was the blocking of User:Nipples57 uncontroversial?

[38] As an outsider coming upon this lengthy discussion, I'm baffled when I see that the blocking of an almost identical username went, so far as I can tell, completely unremarked on. I'm clearly missing something significant, and would appreciate some guidance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandahl, on that earlier block, provided an explanatory template. Besides that, we just didn't happen to catch it. If we had, some discussion might still have ensued, but probably not the flamefest we're seeing here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That and, there's no reason to think anyone noticed the block at the time. We can't catch everything. Had people noticed it, and voiced concerns to Sandahl, hopefully s/he would have reacted very differently. Making occasional mistakes isn't a problem; how you handle them afterward is what matters more. Equazcion (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(...which I now see post-edit-conflict that Sarek already mentioned, sorry). Equazcion (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification -- was this a hardblock, as I originally stated? I know that's what it says in the block summary, but I can't tell for sure if that's what was done. All the log says is "Account creation blocked". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the user was able to add the rename request to their talk page, it probably wasn't hard, I think. Equazcion (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm asking about Rschen's block here, not Sandahl's. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Account creation blocked" is a hardblock, "autoblock disabled" is a softblock. Evil saltine (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Night, all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

← To get back on track here - no, I personally don't want to see User:Rschen7754 dragged before ArbCom and certainly not de-sysopped. Absolutely not - and this isn't anything about that. He's a good admin in the main and I've seen his work before on dispute resolution (and on Troubles issues :) ) and have no problems there. I just want to ensure he handles usernames a little more carefully, uses templates and lays off the ACB blocks except in extreme cases. If he says, Yeah, I'll do that. I see where the problem may be now", then we're done and it's over. We admins have a ton of stuff to deal with and none of us get it right all of the time. Hardblocking plus not templating is the ultimate repudiation to an editor (banhammer, then turn your back on them) and we really shouldn't be doing it. It makes us all look bad in the long run. That's all - Alison ^❤ 05:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to err more on the side of softblock rather than hardblock. However, I will hardblock if I see a name that is disruptive (i.e. personal attacks, isgay, *on wheels, etc.) In these instances, I don't see the point of templating, as the user knows what they are doing wrong, and the page will get trashed within a month. That all being said, I still consider the original username that started this mess to be inappropriate. It is very provocative, and most of the time I see users like that just vandalizing away if left unblocked. I still stand by my hardblock of the user (and I believe that that is what they deserve) but in the interests of resolving this discussion, were I to come across a similar username again I would probably softblock. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In summary, I still don't agree, but I'll do more softblocks to pacify people. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* - this is really the wrong answer. You just don't seem to find anything wrong with the generality here ('nipple' aside for a second). WP:AGF and WP:BITE pretty much mandate the use of templates, at least for those borderline cases where we're left with a confused editor who doesn't know what just happened. When in doubt, just pop a template down. How long does it take? It's a basic courtesy. The word 'nipple' is not "very provocative" - honestly - and I believe you should rethink where your threshold lies re. usernames. And when in doubt, don't hardblock. Keep that for the Grawp accounts and the WoW ones, but very little else - Alison ^❤ 06:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I always leave templates for softblocks, and if it's not obvious why, I usually provide some sort of hint why the username is inappropriate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, some people don't template: [39] [40] You going to go after the admins who blocked those users, subject them to the same sort of cabal? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"going after", "cabal"?? Puh-leeze. Lookit - I'm throwing my hands up at this stage. I need to sleep - Alison ^❤ 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No-one is saying that you cannot take action against names like FagmanButNotAsGayAsBurke. I think it's weird that you think names like "IHateWikiediaAndWillVandalizeEveryPage" or "FagmanButNotAsGayAsBurke" are the same as "Nipple37". NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point - these users' talk pages are redlinked. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No. You missed the point. There are some names that are so offensive they deserve an instant, hard, block, with account creation disabled. There are some names that demonstrate enough bad faith that you don't need to wait for any edits before you block them. No one is asking you not to take action against usernames like those. But then there are names that are borderline. When you see a name that you think is bad faith, and you think belongs to a vandal you have a few options. i) Wait for edits. As soon as there's vandalistic edits the account is blockable, and uncontroversially so. ii) Wait for edits. If they are good faith edits welcome the user, then talk to them about their username. iii) Talk to the user, and if they don't change the name take it to RfCU. You've treated someone with a daft name (Nipple) the same as someone with a grossly offensive name (HitlerWasRight). Can't you see that's sub-optimal? You, and Bugs, say that "people with names like Nipple37 are usually vandals" - but people with names like nipple37 get locked before they make edits, so we don't know that they're vandals. I'm disappointed that you have a wide range of approaches to take to usernames but that you appear to default to "instant block, with out discussion, with no opportunity to change name, with no opportunity to return with a different name". This is incredibly bitey. And about other admins doing it: Please mention them, here or on talk page of UAA. We don't want a witchhunt, but we do want to stop biting newbies. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

90% of what you said was stated above in some form. I don't need a lecture. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have understood the point of the lecture then you have not been particularly good at getting the fact across. When you are stopped by a policeman for jaywalking but you believe it was perfectly OK to do so, you may get away with "I don't think I did anything wrong, but now I realise how important it is to you I will be more careful to observe pedestrian lights in the future." You are not going to get away with: "I did nothing wrong, but I can use my car instead, so I don't really care. I agree not to cross any roads at all in the next twelve months." Hans Adler 10:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for lecturing you. Do you think a name like "Nipple72" is as disruptive as, for example, "fagmanbutnotasgayasbburke", and do you think they need the same type of blocking? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors have pride

Read it then move along, please. Icewedge (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The conditions we've outlined above fall under the "Suggestions for what to do instead" in that essay. Personally I also tend to hold admins to a slightly higher standard than other editors, in terms of the acceptance of responsibility and swallowing pride. That's part of what makes a good admin. Either way I'm not asking for an admission, just a promise for the future. Equazcion (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that EHP fully applies here, because I believe that I am in the right. I cannot make an admission under a clear conscience because I do not believe that I am wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I just said, and I can only speak for myself here, I'm not asking you to say you were wrong. I don't care about that. ThaddeusB laid out a specific compromise for the future. You could end all of this by just agreeing to it. I thought it was rather reasonable. Equazcion (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This all amounts to a difference in Wikipedia philosophy. You're forcing me to conform to your philosophy and methodology. (As if I *could* be forced... right now, we're just administrators talking and it's not like you have special authority or anything.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "I'll do whatever I damn well please and you can't stop me". It's more than just a difference of philosophy at work here - Alison ^❤ 07:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... I looked through the UAA history and saw some things you might not approve of. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(after multiple EC's) It may be a difference of opinion, but not between you and me -- it's between you and the community. The offensiveness of the username is being debated, but the opinion on your general blocking practice has been fairly consistent. No one likes it too much. And I'm not an admin, FYI. Equazcion (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I would do more softblocks. What else do you want? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"More" isn't terribly assuring. From ThaddeusB above: 1) an agreement not to hardblock for username except in extreme circumstances, and 2) an agreement to template blocked users. Equazcion (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Templates, please (a bare minimum of interaction), plus a little less sensitivity re. what's "very provocative", that's all. No need for apologies, no mea culpas required. Just a little undertaking to ease off (esp. of hardblocks) - Alison ^❤ 07:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're adding *that* too? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding what? I've said here from the get-go that the redlinked talk page was a problem - Alison ^❤ 07:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"less sensitivity." --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, less sensitivity. You're hardblocking usernames that shouldn't be, then turning your back on them. Don't do that stuff. Whether you think it's the worst word in the English language is neither here nor there at this juncture, it's clear that many disagree. Rather than assuming everyone else must be wrong, maybe just maybe you mightn't be, here. No? - Alison ^❤ 07:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nipple" in a username is inappropriate. I'm not backing down on the last sentence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) Rschen, as someone who shares with you the (apparently) minority viewpoint that the username could potentially be disruptive, it's clear that the consensus here is that users with usernames of this variety should not be blocked, and certainly not hard blocked. I agreed earlier that this thread was taking the shape of a flogging, but I also find it baffling that you have within your grasp the ability to resolve the matter and have chosen not to do so. It appears clear that the consensus disagrees with your opinion on the matter. Multiple administrators and editors are asking you to acknowledge that you recognize that in the hope that it will prevent future misunderstandings of this nature. I don't consider that to be unreasonable, do you? user:J aka justen (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me is that a) adding templates for hardblocked users is pointless, b) other users are doing the same and they haven't been contacted about it, c) in essence certain editors are attempting to force me to conform to their interpretation of policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty much everyone, Rschen. When everyone forces you to conform to their interpretation of policy, it's called consensus. Equazcion (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And also, I always template softblocks. The fact that I will be doing more softblocks means more users will be templated. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It spiraled out of control because you dug your heels in in a rather big way and refused to accept anyone (and everyone) else's opinion. This started on Beeblebrox' talk page when you suggested he take it to ANI. That's why we're here. Beeblebrox had previously requested input from the UAA talk page, which is where I came in. Intransigence in the extreme - Alison ^❤ 07:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I would softblock more users, that means templating more users. What else do you want? Do I need to copy and paste text? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to copy and paste text to agree to all the conditions that have been laid out. We've spelled them out nice and clear, yet you just keep saying "I'll do more softblocks". Please. Equazcion (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You and I disagree on what is disruptive. That is a serious problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant to the compromise. Keep dragging this out buddy. Either way I'll rest somewhat in the comfort that this 65KB-and-growing incident was visible enough to invite much-needed scrutiny to your future actions. Equazcion (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can quote policy to support your philosophy, then I will consider it. You have yet to do that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Others have. Remember, this isn't about you and me. Besides which, consensus pretty much trumps everything else. And yeah consensus is a policy. What we have demonstrated here is a consensus. 66KB. Equazcion (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I would do more softblocks - let me clarify - if it's not disruptive it will be a softblock (as per the UAA instructions), and that means templating more users. Just an FYI, badgering someone on ANI doesn't exactly look good either. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree to template all users that you block in the future? And please don't respond with reasons why you shouldn't need to. You should do it because we're asking you to. I think that's all we're down to. Equazcion (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For username blocks... only because the WP:UAA instructions say to when I checked today, I will agree to that. Nobody bothered to point me to this. My position stands regarding "if it's not disruptive it will be a softblock" and regarding "nipple" being offensive. I still believe that I was in the right to block today's user. This is my final position, which policy fully supports. If you want to get any more out of me, it won't happen, and you will need to go to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you've agreed to template all username blocks, even if it's "only because UAA tells you to". We'll all have to remember to just edit a policy next time we need you to do something. You could probably save yourself a lot of heartache in the future by accepting the fact that large masses of people should be listened to over policy. Just a suggestion. I'm too tired to remember if I should be satisfied with this outcome or not, so I'll let others decide. Toodles. Equazcion (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The block in this case was appropriate, but the admin should have explained to the user why he was blocking, and should have given the user (at least for awhile) the chance to respond and/or make a new, acceptable ID. The blocker should always explain why he's blocking. If it's something horribly gross (which this isn't), a hardblock might be in order. But in this case, it would have been better to give them enough rope to hang themselves, and then there wouldn't be this lengthy discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that hardblocking wasnt appropriate? and that it's fine to block a vandal, but it's better to hold off on a block for a username, And that asking a new user to change their name is better than blocking them? So really your first sentence ("The block was appropriate") doesn't make much sense. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How about just moving on?

This has gone further than it needs to, and to save any more issues and make good drama, let's just resolve this and move on? I mean, we have other things to do (such as expanding articles and Wikipedia maintenance) and its bad for our health. Decisions aren't right all the time, but we can't just drown on the problem, and this has gone further than it needs.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 10:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.