Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

I am requesting that User:Plastikspork's alternate account User:Plasticspork be blocked from editing. Although it is a known alternate account, Plastikspork is using it to make 1000s of semi-automated edits before and after he/she learned that the edits were controversial. This use is clearly against the policy of using legitimate alternate accounts.

On January 312, 2011 I posted a question about whether his bot had been approved for 27,000 edits he appeared to be planning to undertake.[1] I noticed that his bot was not making the edits and crossed out my question. He/she and User:Bob the Wikipedian began a discussion in the thread I started about Plastikspork using semi-automated edits to make the 5000 or so edits carried out thus far. Plastikspork continued making the controversial edits with his alternate account from the time I asked about, without notifying me that he was doing so.

He/she used the account to evade my scrutiny of his/her edits. Therefore, this is not a legitimate use of an alternate account and the alternate account should be blocked. He/she could have simply posted a link to the alternate account to show that is where the editing was being done, but instead, acted in a deceptive manner about the account, not coming clean that that was how he/she was editing. And he/she is continuing the edits in spite of the controversy about them. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose as a bearer of evidence, be it for or against, I should bring that to the floor. More information regarding this situation may be found at Template talk:Taxobox#RfC 2. Please have a look at it before making any judgment here, as it explains the nature of this case. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, this is another point about these edits. They appear to require an RfBA, and, under bot guidelines, the bot task would probably not be approved. 27,000 edits which do not improve or change an article do nothing. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also Wikipedia:Bot requests#Taxobox maintenance, one-time. Thanks for reviewing these related discussions. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Not a specific reply) In light of Kleopatra's question atWP:BOTN about whether a RfBA would be be needed for such a task, I would like to clarify that per bot policy, number of edits per se does not require one to file for a RfBA. The qualifying criterion for a RfBA is rate of edits, as a measure of whether care and attention is being paid to every edit. I haven't looked at the specific case here but I thought I'd point out that 5,000 edits alone does not require a RfBA; 5000 edits in 24 hours does. Of course, that does not mean that PS is in the right here, only that he is not necessarily in the wrong on this particular issue. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all. A slow-moving bot pays no more care and attention to its edits than a fast-moving one. Approval should be required regardless of the bot's edit speed. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is about where, in a mass-edit, the line is drawn between RfBA and regular editor AWB. The OP notes that PS did not reveal that their "AWB-account" did the job. To be clear: User:Plasticspork has two extra accounts: User:Plasticbot (a bot) and User:Plastikspork. Both extra accounts have AWB permission. Probably there is an accepted reason PS does not reveal the Plasticspork ("AWB") account. If so, then PS should prevent confusion some other way -- but preventing should be done. If there is no reason, e.g. because the account is allowed for "maintenance", then the second [third] account should be clearly linked to the main account. Either way, PS is failing. One of the effects of this hiding is that at least one user got lost is researching what was going on [2], where to state controversiality at all, and in the process loosing trust in admins ability for self-regulation [3],and worse [4]. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My alternate accounts are both disclosed on my userpage, they are "SporkBot" and "Plasticspork". As far as I can tell, "Plasticbot" is run by a different user. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found them. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing from a post on my talk page. This seems to be a big misunderstanding. First, the reason why I didn't disclose anything to Kleopatra is that Kleopatra "retired" hours after posting to my talk page. So, I assumed Kleopatra was no longer watching my page, or editing on WP. Second, the reason why the edit history is split to an alternate account is to limit the possible damage done by that account, and to isolate the semi-automated/AWB edits from my normal editing. The existence of this alternate account is disclosed on my user page. Third, as soon as I became aware that the task was controversial, I stopped. I was under the impression that this was more than a cosmetic change, and that there was some consensus for this change. This is the first time I have had any objections to my cleanup work. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and I do plan to file a formal request for bot approval if there is consensus from the RFC. FYI, the edit rate was roughly four edits a minute, which was somewhat tedious, but not so bad since it just amounted to checking the diffs, and pressing a button to commit. Let me know if I can answer any other questions. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you embarked upon 100 hrs of AWB edit checking? And the thought of using a bot did not pop up? First of all, it was a botrequest. Curious. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I was going to be the only one, which is why I said "help with this task" rather than "handle this request". Given the chance to respond again, I would certainly do things differently. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you did not create an auto-save gadget for AWB? Well, Kleopatra added this here below. Considering your actions, the timeline, and the behaviour, I see this: at every moment of choice you passed, you choose the evasive option. And that is what your comments on this say too. I won't criticize these individual moments here. But the general line is there: any editor is supposed to deserve good faith , when working in good faith. On top of this, an experienced user, an admin & bot owner at that, should know this by heart & intuition (is why I don't link to policies &tc, right?). That is missing here, PS.

(Disclosure: I am here because I was surprised that PS wrote ... in a "semi-automatic" [quotes - sic] mode using my AWB account' [5] -- wow, I didn't know such an account existed --, and an editor complaining about non-responsiveness by admins).

Proposal (Well, maybe the outcome could be a block, but more or less PS has admitted it should not have gone this way). Plastikspork, I suggest this solution: could you come clear about your actions (making it more easy easy to AGF), and step forward to Kleopatra to invite them back from retirement. Kleo is not that far away, we know. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my initial concerns about the edits at 7:54 am, 31 January 2011, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−7).[6] You had already started editing with your alternate account at this time.[7] You made at least 1000 additional edits with your alternate account after I posted my concerns, and did not disclose your alternate account on the bot request board.

I posted an additional concern about the task at 10:16 pm, 31 January 2011, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−7). You were editing with your alternate account at these times.

I posted another concern about the edits at 10:19 pm, 31 January 2011, last Monday;[8] your last edit by the alternate account was at 17:07, 1 February 2011.[9]

I made 2 posts at the bot request board indicating my concern and two posts on your talk page indicating my concerns and that I was attempting to scrutinize any edits your bot was making. Instead of notifying me that your alternate account was making the edits instead of your bot, you continued to edit and made more than a thousand edits with your alternate account knowing that I considered the edits controversial. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plastikspork, can you declare that you did not use any extra automation when doing the AWB edits? -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain perlWikipedia. I provide a list of pages, and a regular expression. It shows me the diffs, and I approve/skip each one, then it commits the edits. The rate that I use is slower than AWB. As far as I can tell, it's not any different than AWB. The last time I used AWB, there was an "autosave" feature which allows you to not even inspect the edits. However, this may have changed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plastikspork: twenty-six-kay this way? I do not believe this. I'd say: bot it. -DePiep (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My POV and some facts: 1)In normal AWB non-bots editors are excluded from auto-save. I find no evidence that the program was modifying someway to auto-save. 2) A bot request doesn't exclude that an editor will perform the task. I don't think Plastispork was expecting to do all the 27k edits manually. 3) Sometimes editors who are willing to help with tasks act faster than they should. It happened to me more than once. No actual harm was done. There is not even a reason to revert. The only thing tha may have happened is that some watchlists were triggered for good. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that people sometimes jump the gun, not a big deal, and I agree reverting is not necessary, whether or not it's decided to go ahead with the rest of the edits.

But I'm having a hard time with the "plug-in error" and other excuses, such as that the need for disclosure disappeared with my retirement.

I think people editing with alternate accounts, particularly if they're doing any editing simultaneously with the alternate account and their main account, have a high duty to be careful in making clear what they are doing and monitoring in case any controversy arises. I consider this a serious failure in Plastikspork's actions, and I'm not sure that he does. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This,

"While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden."

is what it says at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

1. User:Plastikspork made edits after I posted my disagreement: against ommunity consensus.
2. He did not disclose that his alternate account was making the edits after I expressed my disagreement and after I questioned whether his bot was making the edits:deception.

His alternate account should be blocked for sock puppetry. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economist letter to the editor (currently being discussed on Jimbo's talk page:[10] "I have been a contributor since the summer of 2009, mostly to articles on race issues, and during this time I’ve seen several members quit the project. Every person I know of who has left provided the same reason, which is that Wikipedia’s rules are enforced selectively, especially the rule that members treat each other in a civil manner. ... The surest way for administrators and ArbCom to retain their positions is to appeal to popular sentiment among the ordinary members. By doing so they drive away members who might have voted against them. ... This self-sustaining cycle of bias, the decline in participation and Mr Wales’s gradual delegation of authority to the community and to ArbCom have all occurred since 2007."

The article in the Economist includes this information:[11] "The number of regular contributors to Wikipedia’s English-language encyclopedia dropped from around 54,000 at its peak in March 2007 to some 35,000 in September 2010 ... Perhaps, but some evidence suggests that neophytes are being put off by Wikipedia’s clique of elite editors."

The New York Times article on female contributors:[12] "bout a year ago, the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, collaborated on a study of Wikipedia’s contributor base and discovered that it was barely 13 percent women; the average age of a contributor was in the mid-20s, according to the study by a joint center of the United Nations University and Maastricht University."

So, I ask, are there special rules that only apply to administrators, namely, you don't have to follow rules? Or are we creating an encylopedia here that may require the knowledge of someone besides 20-something men? --Kleopatra (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was sockpuppetry, he would have signed using the other account. He clearly stated using his primary ID that he was volunteering. Following your advisory not to move forward, I countered that explaining the rationale very soon afterward. I wouldn't blame him if he assumed that my rationale cleared up your concerns. When you posted a second time, wondering where the bot request was, I explained the situation to the best of my knowledge. No, I hadn't been made aware at that point that Plasticspork was a maintenance account being used in the approved manner listed at WP:Multiple Accounts under the bullet labeled "maintenance"-- up until he said so, I'd assumed he was doing it with a bot and wondered myself why the request had gotten action so quickly, but since bots aren't my thing, I assumed the folks at WP:Bot requests would notice anything suspicious if it were indeed suspicious. Of course, as the situation developed, it became clear to me that the discussion wasn't being monitored, or a bot owner would probably have contacted him asking him to hold on before I did so. This much does disturb me, that other bot owners weren't monitoring the activity there, which should have been clear from some of the edit summaries.

Once it was revealed that this was not being done with a bot, the lack of procedure taken prior to the edits made a great deal more sense. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Plastikspork withheld information that he was making the edits with his alternate account. The edits are controversial. He knew that from my post on the bot request board, but he continued to make at least a 1000 more edits after learning they were controversial. He hid that he was editing with his alternate account apparently to avoid scrutiny of the edits when an editor who had expressed concerns about the edits on the bot request board then mentioned she was scrutinizing the edits on Plastikspork's talk page. He should have stopped with the first controversial post. He should have revealed with the first question. He has a lot of excuses for not revealing, but none of them hold water with the fact that the controversial nature of the edits was raised long before I asked whether his bot was making them.

There's no rule that you can make controversial maintenance edits; there's no rule that you can hide scrutiny of maintenance edits.

And, making a controversial edit to a template is not a maintenance task. See WP:Maintenance. --Kleopatra (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I just got back after an unfortunate, unexpected trip. From my talk page ... I agree that the burst of 5000 edits was a mistake, and I certainly apologize for that, if I haven't already. I honestly didn't see the message from Kleopatra until right around 00:07 UTC on February 2, which when I stopped. I would have responded to her directly, but when I went to her talk page, I saw that she had retired. The only reason that I can come up with for why I didn't see the message earlier is some javascript bug in my browser, or a conflict with one of the plugins (e.g., noscript or greasemonkey). I did not intend to deceive anyone, and thought that the change had already achieved consensus, and was not controversial. The reason for using an alternate account is to make it easier to isolate my semi-automated edits, and for security, I am not aware how most of the scripting languages store my password. For example, perlWikipedia, which is what I usually use, doesn't use the secure server, and probably stores the password in memory in plain text. Once again, sorry for the misunderstandings, and I can assure you that it won't happen again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my edit summary[13] posted at the bot request discussion, "Taxobox maintenance, one-time: whoa! 26,000 bot cosmetic changes to prep for a future not-yet-approved automation? no!" I think it was grossly irresponsible of you to continue with 26,000 edits without monitoring the discussion related to the bot edit request. You were logged in and making edits from both your primary account and your alternate account for some point of time and could readily have monitored this discussion. I think that, as an administrator, a bot owner, and the owner of an alternate account making thousands of edits, you have a greater duty to pay attention to what you are editing and monitor for controversies. The type of monitoring that should be done to prevent having to discuss situations after the fact for days. You really think it is okay for an admin/bot owner/alternative account owner to ignore concerns long enough to make another 1000 edits? What would you consider appropriate actions for a user who offered up your excuse, that you weren't paying attention, essentially? Is that appropriate for the owner of an alternate account who is making 5000 edits? Not paying attention to the lack of consensus? --Kleopatra (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS If you have a glitch in your semi-automated alternate account that blocks messages, then maybe you should block the account yourself, regardless of my request for a block here. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did disclose that I was using an alternate account on my talk page. I would have told Kleopatra sooner had I not been under the impression that she had retired. The use of alternate non-admin accounts by admins is actually quite common (see links to Template:User alternative account name and others, for example), and I disclose these alternate accounts on my user page. Again, I apologize for the burst of edits, and I promise it won't happen again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not until long after the fact of continuing to make edits and after your editing with the alternate account became more controversial than the edits. My question on the bot request board, and my edit summary to my post, were both strong indicators that controversy existed. You ignored them. Then you choose to put the blame on me for your continuing to edit when you had multiple indications of controversy? Again, would you buy this from another editor, the post on the bot request board ignored for another 1000 edits, then the excuse that since the editor had retired, possibly due to your actions, there was no need for full disclosure? Is that an acceptable course for an administrator/bot owner/alternate account owner? This claim that you didn't know and that you didn't bother with disclosure and didn't quit when it was clear in two places the edits were controversial?--Kleopatra (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New subthread, splicing for User:Bob the Wikipedian. Another disturbing line of behaviour in this is by BtW (of admin priesthood). Here above they wrote being bearer of evidence to create "perspective" -- BtW you were in the middle of the happening when it happened, not an outsider witness. Elsewhere (not here) you claimed some sort of responsibility off PS's shoulders [14], away from manual AWB-saving?. In that same post, you introduced an after the fact RfC to create "some level of community approval", while BtW started the bot request we are talking about (where Kleo responded along the line: "well, I'll see that RfBA when it happens"). I state that BtW (an admin) should have the intuition and AGF state of mind to prevent this derailing. BtW should have actively prevented this, they knew it was controversial. There were multiple moments BtW could have acted. On top of this, BtW is rudely dismissive to an editor when pointed to this behaviour ("I half-expected the scandal would reach this far", and "... your feelings toward administrators ..." --no, it is about admin's behaviour, BtW). The edit summary in this final link was "adios" -- which proves bad faith. I state that BtW knowingly evaded policy, and was uncivil to an AGF editor.
I support the general question Kleo puts forward in this case: why are admins treated different towards policies? Any non-admin with such behavior (including PS, ping-pong is a tango sports) would have been reverted first, before talking. At least. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, I highly encourage you to investigate the discussions at Template talk:Taxobox, Template talk:Automatic taxobox, and then decide who is acting rashly. I think it's safe to say by now that this is a personal attack from Kleopatra which she has extended toward Plastikspork. This personal attack seems to have begun months some time ago ^{(when you are as busy as I am, days seem numbered several times over) - comment corrected at 00:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC) by Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs)} during the development of {{automatic taxobox}} and is now being unleashed at a much wider degree than before. Having stated this, yes, I was aware that Kleopatra objected, but never once in the history of my knowing her has she ever supported anything I've done, even though those around me do.

On a side note, but probably an important side note, I've got a ton of homework at the moment and won't be able to say much without cutting into that until tomorrow evening (I'm on UTC-6). Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was not trying to appear as an uninvolved party; in fact, I was trying not to create bias in the discussion but merely trying to be helpful in linking to the relevant discussions. Also, I'd like to know how "adios" is bad faith...I say adios in ending conversation all the time, and that was my response to her saying she was leaving. If I'm not mistaken, the word has its etymology somewhere along the lines of "God bless", so I'm quite confused as to how that's rude. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thing began with the bot request by BtW (Jan 30, 23:56 UTC). Nowhere in the subsequent branching threads I have found a post by Kleo that would require outside correction. Also, BtW here also does not provide such an edit. Now BtW invokes previous discussions. But apart from cumulative warnings etc, fueds do not weigh in disputes. Even worse, surprisingly BtW introduces them as if they matter to (excuse for ) current behaviour. To me, if they are unresolved disputes, this is not the way to resolve them. No way they are a pass to go ahead undiscussed. And BtW admissed a dispute by the late introduction of RfC. Simply: if Kleo's contribution was that negative, why not go for RfBA from the start? Why could you not have get the outcome you'd propose?

I am with Kleo on this point: I do not expect superior behaviour from admins. I only expect that they apply the same rules for themselves, as they do for other editors. -DePiep (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I state that BtW knowingly evaded policy, and was uncivil to an AGF editor." Accidentally, I've been watching this WP:DRAMA from aside, and I cannot possibly agree that Kleopatra was an AGF editor. On the contrary, she has exhibited everything but good faith. I don't know the whole history between herself and BtW, but all I saw from her side in last 3 days was just complaining that the policy is not followed and screaming administrator abuse in various forums. I would have a greater level of sympathy if the edits in question somehow had an adverse effect on her own work, but all I saw was just complaining for complaining's sake. May I remind everyone on WP:BURO and WP:IAR? And you aren't helping much, DePiep, with such inquisitory attitude. While I will agree that Plastikspork blew the procedure and didn't follow the bot policy to the letter, I don't see any particular harm having been done so far, except for the feelings of all involved.

My suggestion is as follows: slap two WP:TROUTs to Plastikspork, one for BtW and Kleopatra each, then let the RfC about the edits finish; depending on the outcome, complete the job or revert Plasticspork's edits. As far as I can tell, there was no rush to perform these edits, which would justify the speed in which they were executed. Also, there was no harm being done to the encyclopedia. No such user (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the harm in what I've been complaining about all along. Wikipedia is not many things, but it's also not a place where admins have an exclusive right to edit fully protected templates:editing of fully protected pages requires community consensus for substantive edits. Bob has now told me that I, too, could edit the template as much as I want if I increased my access rights by gaining adminship like he did.[15]

This is not what full protection is for: granting edit rights to admins that non-admins don't have. And it's not the reason for fully protecting this template: to limit editing to admins. The point is to limit editing of the template due to the number of articles it is on and the potential damage that bad edits could cause. Editing articles is the primary purpose of editing wikipedia. There are many excellent editors who aren't admins. These editors may have excellent template-editing skills and insights into good/bad edits to fully protected templates. They should be consulted by gaining consensus as the policy requires.

Alternative accounts have rules. An experienced admin who is also a bot operator should know these rules. One of the policies is that you should not use the alternative account to avoid scrutiny. And, PS not only did avoid scrutiny, he made over a 1000 edits for hours after I first made a comment about the edits, indicating there was controversy. In addition, knowing that I was scrutinizing the edits, in addition to moving forward making them in spite of the controversy, he continued to make them with his alternate account without stating that that was what he was doing. He had plenty of opportunities to disclose his alternate account edits or stop editing. He was signed in on both this alternate and main account while editing, so he had plenty of access to his watch list to see my posts. He responded to Bob about the editing after I had posted my concerns. What good faith should I assume when an editor uses an alternate account to avoid scrutiny of controversial semi-automated edits rather than his bot or main account, both of which I am obviously scrutinizing? --Kleopatra (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re No such user. Tellingly, you provided no diffs to illustrate the "shouting" or "everything but good faith" and such. My reading (of the same) is that Kleo kept posting seriously and to the point; any frustration showing is no reason for any editor to become dismissive or rude. And of course, one does not need to be hindered 'in one's own work' to complain. The sequence is clear: in the Botrequest Kleo noted an objection, which was circumvented at first and later acknowledged by BtW/PS. If there were other arguments, they could have been put forward. What I would propose is that BtW (this subsection) acknowledges their mistakes. Trouts just get smelly. Without some change it would just become a fish slapping dance. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would provide a surprisingly vast array of the edits NSU's referring to, but apparently involved parties are not allowed to bring forth evidence, so I won't unless someone requests it from me. At this time I have no apology to make other than for anything rude I may have said to you, Kleopatra. And until someone can prove to me I've wronged anyone beyond that, that's where I stand on that. I believe Kleopatra also owes Smith609 an apology as well for her most recent remarks about him. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For his disparaging Americans? No. I like Americans. A lot. There's no place for insulting people for their nationality. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[16] Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, your selection of words like tellingly suggest prejudice. But since you insist...

Here on Template talk:Taxobox Kleopatra starts [17] and continues [18] further [19] suggesting that the high-risk template was protected by administrators so that in effect they could ban ordinary users from editing, and requesting that all edits, no matter how small, must receive consensus in advance. Fair enough, she's entitled to that opinion, but that was not the opinion of other commenters (Kim van der Linde, Rkitko), who basically said that it is an exercise in bureaucracy, and that admin edits to fix bugs (without seeking consensus) are OK. I invite all interested to read the thread at Template talk:Taxobox#Permanent protection of this template for administrator only editing?. The representative comment by Kleopatra is "So, it's a null edit, so it doesn't impact anything, so it improves things, so it's still a fully protected template. Can I start making test edits to it? No. Please gain consensus for all edits before testing."

Angry, she puts a {{retired}} [20] on her user pages on Feb 1. On Feb 2, Plastikspork explains to Bob on his talk page [21] that he is using "his AWB account" to make the edits to the articles (not the protected template). Both his alt accounts have been declared on his user page for a long time (Dec 2010). True, he did not answer to Kleopatra which account he used, and he explained later that it was because whe was retired, so the answer would have been moot. Do you believe him? I don't know, but WP:AGF says you should. She apparently doesn't [22]

Suddenly, Kleopatra un-retires, accusing Plastikspork of violating the bot policy, avoiding scrutiny [23] and requesting him to be blocked. The argument continues on Bob's talk page (from [24] onwards), Plastikspork's talk page etc.

She is apparently, and to an extent justifiedly, frustrated that she couldn't edit the protected template, and that administrators did, even without seeking consensus. On one hand, she has a point that, strictly speaking, this is against the policy. On the other hand, she was pretty alone in her insistence that the policy is to be followed to the letter; the counter-arguments are that we have long-standing practice that we do not follow rules just for rules' sake and as long as you're improving encyclopedia and not harming anyone, you're OK. So yes, Bob and Plastik maybe were overly rash to "fix" things around, even if that meant bending some rules. But I think that her anger blew it out of any reasonable proportions, and clouded her judgment. Your opinion who is at fault may vary; in my opinion, everyone is to a certain extent. But I'd like this WP:DRAMA to die out (and, DePiep, I don't think you're helping; heck, I doubt I'm helping, either), because no harm has been done to encyclopedia, and nobody really wanted to harm anybody else. The damage to feelings has been done, though. No such user (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist my intentions to suit your accusations. The null edit is about one specific aspect. Bob didn't make just a null edit. He made a dozen edits in a short period of time, including a null edit, multiple partial edits, and edits where he forgot symbols to a template which appears on ten of 1000s of articles, if not 100,000 articles.[25] The reason this template is fully protected is to partially to prevent editing just like this. If you have to edit a template that appears on 100,000 articles, then you should know what you are doing, rather than make multiple edits that could be the equivalent of a million edits. If he had posted his intentions clearly on the template talk page, after reaching consensus for the edits, other editors and administrators could have commented and made sure he had it right before editing. Instead he admits he didn't gain consensus for at least one edit, another he gained consensus on a user talk page, etc.

Harm is done to the encyclopedia when administrators and editors create an atmosphere whereby editing is hindered by an inability for users who don't live and breath wikipedia to understand how to edit here. See Jimbo's talk page for these discussions all of the time: how to gain more experts, how to gain more female editors, how to retain them and experts, how to retain editors in general.

Should I follow policy? No. If I shouldn't follow policies and gain community consensus, what will happen to me if I don't? Well, if I don't, I'll get blocked by an administrator. Do administrators have to follow policy? It appears not.

Plastikspork made 1000 edits after he saw me post in the original consensus discussion that I objected to the edits. The edits are controversial. He continued editing after I posted on his talk page questions about whether he was making the edit. The edits were being scrutinized. How much bad faith will you assume of me, a lowly expert technical editor, and how much good faith of any administrator? How can I possibly edit here and follow the policies and guidelines when their enforcement is arbitrary or biased in favor of administrators? I'm not an administrator but you and Bob are smearing me for my failure to follow rules; yet you don't hold Plastikspork to any such standard and declare your assumption of good faith for his behavior no matter how the edit history shows he knew there were objections in the original request and later on his talk page and that I was scrutinizing his edits and didn't know about his alternate account. It's called sock puppetry.

And, I have retired from editing. I edit articles. That's what wikipedia is: a collection of articles. And that's it's purpose. If you consider my engaging in these discussions to try to protect the rights of others to be able to understand policies and actively edit, you may be right. In the long run, if administrators learn to follow policies and edit according to policies and understand how frustrating it is for lowly ranked editors like me (as Bob calls me) to see that one set of rules applies to administrators (do what you want if the outcome is good without considering the community) and their example should never be followed because another complete set of rules applies to low ranked editors (follow policy), then wikipedia will be able to retain editors, get more female editors (yeah, I have a good idea how many male administrators are going after me here and will soon jump on), retain female editors, get and retain expert editors, get and retain editors at all. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow..way to paint every administrator with the same brush, and every male administrator at that. And you wonder why you are having a hard time convincing anyone of your position while you single handedly throw attacks and bad faith assumptions at hundreds of editors? -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't painted every administrator and every male administrator with the same brush. And I don't feel they need to be. The majority of administrators on wikipedia are simply editors who are willing to do a lot of tedious work. However, there is no way that my arguments are being listened to, and I keep having to repeat myself, and try to move this back on track as Bob and No such keep trying to move it away from the administrator and his/her socks back to me. See my quotes from the Economist and the New York Times above, though, before you decide it's your time also to start attacking me for trying to get the same rules enforced for administrators that are enforced for me. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So rather than bringing it back on track, you introduce sexism. I happen to have a great deal of respect for women (thanks to natural selection), and I'm insulted you would imply otherwise without anything to back it up. If I've ever even implied that women are not capable of being as good of Wikipedians as men are, I'd like to see the link to that statement. I was hoping that apologizing last night (see the last numbered link I posted above) for challenging you and carrying on with you over this would at least doctor some of this up, but it looks to have been tragically ineffective. I've put up an RfC already and agreed to follow a new policy where I document all my changes on the talk page of each template within the WikiProject. What will it take for you to stop hounding me about this otherwise noncontroversial series of edits? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, this is about Plastikspork. You are the one hounding me. You apologized last night? Really? With meaning? You simply can't leave me alone. I call it what I see it, Bob. You have been jumping at me for every criticism I make of your ineffectual or bad editing of templates, saying it's personal, as if you want to have a relationship with me. You hijack every issue and start whining that it's a personal attack on you. You're not that interesting. Your apology is worth exactly what you intended it to be worth, and I accorded it as much as it deserved. --Kleopatra (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)re No Such User. First, thanks for all the diffs. For sure, Kleo wrote strong opinions, but non are "screaming" nor "everything but good faith". These qualifications NSU used are not substantiated, and I even read some acceptance for Kleo's points in NSU's reply here. It distracts anyone, while they are not relevant for what happened. Next I thing I want to get rid of is that off-topic "protected template" discussion that is introduced here. Simply: if it is solved, then it's done. If not solved, then solve it anywhere but in this thread. Not actions or behavior here can be justified by some feud from outside.

About invoking "bending the rules", "no burocracy", and "not helping much", "no harm done to the encyclopedia" to conclude the debate -- well, that can kill every discussion, and the ANI and Policy pages could stay empty (the discussion shifts to: when should we invoke these uber-reasons &tc). At the same time, you are very sharp about Kleo saying "Retired" while keep editing -- why not bending that rule?
And now for my substantial reaction. What is left is, unclouded, the original Botrequest and it's subsequent threads and actions. NSU, I am not the only one thinking that it might be better to find consensus first for a 26K article edit. Eventually, both BtW and PS stopped the process just to make sure that my claim for this being noncontroversial actually holds water (BtW). That is: RfC or RfBA. If Kleo were talking nonsense or worse -- the discussion would conclude such. If Kleo had reasonable arguments -- the discussion would conclude so. Whatever, the bulk edit would be based on that. The fact is: none of Kleo's edits in this justify the massedits being made secretly or without seeking consensus. -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Wikipedian, you are despicable your behaviour is despicable. From your Botrequest on you have written the worst posts that could pass the filter, and still you are here to claim some correctness or otherones faults. -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my own bad talk. Very bad talk. -DePiep (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to some things above. I agree with DePiep that the massedits were a mistake on my part (not so sure about the despicable part), but I can assure you that I didn't intend to deceive anyone here. If I really believed it would make everyone happy, I would block my alternate account myself. Note that per the blocking policy, blocks are not punitive, but instead are to prevent further disruptive behaviour (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy). As I have stated above, I do not intend to do this again. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see messages in relevant discussions while you are editing with your alternate account, maybe you should block it yourself, as I suggest above. If all this drama arises from you not seeing a message with clear content and an edit summary that says "whoa! no!," then maybe your editing from your alternate account is irresponsible until you get all the glitches out and can follow the discussions related to the thousands of edits you are making. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plastikspork, this subsection is about BtW. I'd say: that's a different cake both by baking and by eating. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"still you are here to claim some correctness or otherones faults" -- If this is not my place to defend myself, and it's not here for Plastikspork to comment, what is it here for? When I am challenged I do try to defend my actions. And so far, I've still seen no evidence that what I did was out of line. The 27K-ish minor edits (which still have not been proven detrimental) were required in order for me to address the poor coding. This cleanup in code was requested by a user of the template, and it's been an issue for many years, but no one's ever taken the time to fix it. Had I not made a bot request, would it still have been a problem? Had this only been 100 edits, or 10, or even a single edit, would it have been a problem? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[26] I know the guy's long dead, but his descendants may well be justifiably upset. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought RevDel wasn't supposed to be used for material that could be handled by reverting? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of requests shouldn't be brought to ANI - it just advertises the information more. I think it should be taken straight to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, non? GiantSnowman 01:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If revdel is all that is needed then an email to an active admin is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with these. ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George1918 (talk · contribs) created a badly formulated poll at Talk:Homeopathy#Is Homeopathy a reliable source for scientific or evidence based medical conclusions? (apparently under the impression that being a "reliable source" is an intrinsic property of a source unrelated to the claim in question), and PPdd (talk · contribs) spammed notifications to a dozen more or less related talk pages. (See Talk:Homeopathy#Objection to the nonsense poll above for a more detailed explanation of the situation from my POV.) I propose that an admin warns both editors to be more careful in the future and, unless PPdd does so themselves, removes most of the spammed notifications as inappropriate. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I created the poll as a subsection from George1918's question by isolating the unresolved part of the question as a subsection header. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note, the atmosphere at the article was quiet and almost harmonious for a long time, but recently it looks as if there might be a return to the old battleground behaviour that led to several Arbcom cases. Symptoms include the appearance of a new sceptic editor who tried to rewrite the historically contentious lead completely without knowing or researching the first thing about the topic, and the sudden appearance of a likely sock of a banned pro-homeopathy editor.

I believe the article is still under discretionary sanctions. While certainly no action should be taken against any individual editor (except for the possible sock; I have filed an SPI), it may soon become necessary to give formal warnings to new editors or to editors whose formal warning about the article sanctions happened long ago. It would be great if a few uninvolved admins could keep an eye on the talk page. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I am one of the editors who "spammed" to relevant Wikiprojects related to using the journal Homeopathy as RS for a physics article in it showing a miraculous "matter genrating machine" at the nanolevel.

Before notifying relevant Wikiprojects (and I presume by the same reasoning, article talk pages related to the RS debate) I was explicitly told by an admin that it was appropriate to do so here[27] --

"How do I "inform a Wikiproject"? I would have liked to do so in several articles, but is this not WP:Canvassing? HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No it isn't, quite the opposite: wikiprojects exist exactly to provide help from editors who specialize or anyway care about a subject. You just go to the desired wikiproject talk page, open a new section and ask with a neutral message for help. --Cyclopia^talk 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)]".[reply]

After the notifications I was again told by an admin it was "reasonable" here --[28],

"I put a notice to please vote at a Wikiproject to which the article belonged. I was told that this is the appropriate place to request votes, though I was told to be neutral and should not express a POV as to how to vote. Did I make a mistake? PPdd (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject; it is also good form to post a note at the discussion saying that you did so. (There might be an expectation that members of the project would tend vote in a block (true or not), and it's good to be completely open about how a discussion has been publicised.) LadyofShalott 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)"

PPdd (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPdd, FYI, although Cyclopia is a very experienced long-time editor here ("reviewer" status) I don't believe they are an admin. You need to add a tool to your monobook that immediately provides lots of information when you let your mouse pointer hover over a link. In this case it immediately tells me this about Cyclopia: "reviewer, 6735 edits since: 2004-07-25". It even shows me the top of their userpage! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject". It is unreasonable, however, to post a link to 3 WikiProjects (Rational skepticism, Medicine, Alternative medicine), 3 policy/guideline talk pages (RS, MEDRS, FRINGE) and 5 articles (List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science). Hans Adler 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this ANI is premature. HkFnsNGA is a good-faith editor with some common newbie issues that need ironing out (and it seems they're improving in fact), and George1918 is quite a classical case of tendentious newbie or semi-newbie (I cannot and will not comment on possible sockpuppeting issues). Nothing odd I'd say for such an article, and I wouldn't raise an AN/I for what looks like the natural cycle of such articles on WP. However the "poll" itself was actually helpful (or at least not harmful) in settling the specific matter. I fully agree with Hans Adler that sources are not reliable or not in a vacuum but obviously by context -yet the context indicated in the poll (and most importantly in the poll opinions) was quite circumscribed. I also don't think that notifying wikiprojects per se is akin to spamming -they exist for these very reasons. I personally would have notified the RS/N (don't know if it has been actually done) and perhaps moved the discussion there, but the more eyes on a controversial issue, the better. --Cyclopia^talk 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cyclopia: FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I had been aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed I might have acted somewhat differently, but I was not aware and I don't think that's my fault. It appeared to me that one problematic new user had temporarily disappeared and another problematic user appeared. Even with the new knowledge I don't think this report is premature. The homeopathy article had an extremely bad atmosphere in the past, and excessive spamming of canvasing messages creates a real chance that we will return to that situation soon. The situation should be monitored by uninvolved admins.

This [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] was not just "notifying wikiprojects", it was far out of proportion. Especially for an attempt to canvas answers to a question that didn't need asking in the first place because the answer is so obvious. Hans Adler 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed as well. There are a few talk page notices which make little sense but I see nothing serious happening from that. And again: it may seem so obvious to us but this doesn't mean it is obvious to everyone. Too many times I've seen (in WP and in real life) the "obvious" challenged by good faith people. It is good to have a consensus even on the obvious to better rebuke who wants to challenge the obvious due to a POV. --Cyclopia^talk 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boy does that ever apply here! George1918 is such an editor....a very persistent POV pusher who fails to understand many things about how science works. Of course that's generally to be expected from those who are true believers in homeopathy. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the concerns Hans Adler must have felt when seeing what he thought was a newbie engaged in so much activity! Fortunately it was an experienced editor and the poll was about a specific issue. (In fact, when I discovered that someone didn't follow the link and tried !voting "on the spot", I followed PPdd's trail and made a clearer notice of where to !vote.)

We need to differentiate between proper "notifications" and improper "canvassing":

• Notifications of polls, RfCs, etc. are normally sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification. It is important in doing so to include the talk pages of both believers and skeptics, otherwise it's de facto "canvassing".

• Canvassing would be sending such notifications in a manner to get a desired result, either by selective notification or by asking for a certain result. That's very wrong.

In this case I don't see a violation of the prohibition against canvassing. (Whether the question is really unnecessary to ask because the answer is obvious is another matter.) In this case it related to a specific situation and was to demonstrate to a pushy and persistent newbie what the consensus of editors believed on the matter, and it seems to have served the purpose. Some of the !votes were excellent answers that showed how even a normally questionable source should be treated (decision about use as a RS made on a case-by-case basis). Even an often questionable source can be used in some circumstances. It's not a black/white situation.

I'm not saying that everything about this matter was necessarily worded perfectly, or done completely wisely, but in principle I don't see any gross violation. At worst it was a good faith attempt to settle an issue that was very pressing and causing quite a bit of disruption, especially because it was coming from a newbie of questionable origins. Any advice from others who see this from other angles would no doubt be welcomed by all concerned parties here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse BullRangifer above statement completely. --Cyclopia^talk 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't.

• PPdd is not an "experienced editor". PPdd is an over-enthusiastic newbie who is about to cause serious damage at one of our historically most contentious articles, possibly steering it straight to Arbcom.
• The poll was not about a specific issue, or at least not a sensible one. It's hard to tell because it was so unclear. The only thing that was clear was that "no" was the only sensible answer, and that this could later be overinterpreted. Not too long ago I have seen something eerily similar, and it caused a great deal of disruption that was hard to deal with. As a result, I no longer have any tolerance for such bullshit. (As a general comment, I have hardly ever seen a single editor or two create a poll and advertise it widely without waiting for input and approval of the poll's formulation from their fellow editors. I don't know if this is regulated in any way, but acting like this is a sure path to chaos.)
• Notifications are not normally "sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification". At least not for values of "numerous" that lie around 10. Two or perhaps three talk pages are reasonable. Eleven are not.
• The choice of talk pages does not appear completely unbiased, either, although I consider this a very minor point.

That said, I agree it wasn't a "gross violation". But it was behaviour that needs to stop. Hans Adler 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hans, FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still puzzled as to what to do regarding notification to projects and talk pages to end limitless questions about RS and alternative medicine and pseudoscience journals. The RS related talk pages are directly on point for notification, so are the three projects. I was told that this might create a "block voting" situation, so I thought (thinking there would be a swarm of reacting pseudoscience POV pushers voting) it best to post at talk on relevant article talk pages. (I thought junk science was synonymous with pseudoscience in the court and politics. I was once malisciously prosecuted using what a major national president of a scientific body described in his a keynote address at his body's annual national meeting as, alternatively, "junk physical science" then "pseudoscience".) If the situation arises again, I do not know what is proper. Selectively notifying relevant talk pages is a kind of canvassing. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How was the discussion related to improvements of any of the following articles? list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science. I think I can be forgiven if I got the impression that you selected these articles because you expected to find a certain type of editor there, rather than because of any relevance of the question to the articles themselves. You could just as well have notified editors at articles such as Catholicism, Discovery Institute and parapsychology. That would not have been OK, either. Hans Adler 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expected editors at talk at list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, and pathological science to be interested in what or what is not RS for pseudoscience, when there is a claim to use a scientific method in the article in question (as was made in the electron miscroscope article on nanoparticles in Homeopathy. In circles I travel in, junk science is used more commonly than pseudoscience to describe the same thing. Pathological science and pseudoscience are often used interchangeably, e.g., by what Brangifer referred to about DNA-electromagnetism studies and homeopathy (called alternatively pseudoscience or pathological science. I almost did not post at these, thinking it would attract a bunch of nuts, but I decided to do it anyway because I thought I was being biased if I did not. PPdd (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming good faith, I have tolerantly read George1918's extensive ultra-POV comments at homeopathy talk, as well as the full and sincere time other editors have spent responding to them. His proposal for Homeopathy as RS to put science and medicine things in the homeopathy article was voted down by unanious consensus. George1918 has made ZERO contributions to WP other than (1) many huge comments at the talk page of homeopahy, (2) linking a single date (e.g., "1918" to "1918") in a handful of articles (edits that were immediately reverted, with edit summary not to link dates, which he ignored), and (3) capitalizing "no." to "No" in one article.[40] It is odd that he created a new account a short time ago, but seemed to have sophisticated knowledge of WP policies from the outset. The extensive and ultra-fringe POV expressed in comments seems highly disruptive. PPdd (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it healthy to develop such an "obsession" for or against an editor following him around? Please reconsider and try to be friendly: provide reasons and reliable sources. It easier and more fun than that you are currently doing. --George1918 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The meaning of my question was - as I have stated - Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy ?. You changed it conducting your poll. I asked this question because I saw the journal Homeopathy to be used as a reference multiply times in the article, without any objection. When it was suggested that claims of homeopathy published in the same journal to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes - the journal became automatically unreliable for any purpose. Furthermore another editor -replying to my question- said that all references using homeopathy should be replaced by reliable sources. The same thing of course happens to NCCAM website and the American Medical Association which seem to have double properties: Reliable to take entire quotes describing how much homeopathy is ineffective and unsupported by science and unreliable for reporting any info which might provide such as that NCCAM funds homeopathy research. I don't really know who demonstrates an excessive point of view here. Maybe you should ask yourself. Can we try to be more honest here? I might have to repeat that I have nothing to do with homeopathy and I believe that the topic is not presented netrualy even by wikipedia standards which means : accurate and complete presentation of homeopathy claims and accurate and complete representation of the mainstream experts's opionions - not only the opinion of the skeptics scientists. --George1918 (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George1918, you talk about honesty, but I believe your presentation is itself misleading. You write: "When it was suggested that claims of homeopathy published in the same journal to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes - the journal became automatically unreliable for any purpose." By adding some words there ("to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes"), you changed the whole history of what happened. (Maybe you thought those words, but you didn't write them. If you ever did, then it was much later, after you had created much confusion by insisting it was a reliable source. We were fairly clear that it's use as a RS is very limited, that is for opinions, but not for scientific facts. The poll was worded as it was because we needed to make it clear to you that Homeopathy couldn't be used for such purposes. For the opinions of homeopathists? Of course. That's obvious. I believe there was ONE editor who went a bit overboard at first and declared it couldn't be considered a RS at all, but that editor likely wasn't thinking about the possibility of using it for opinions. No, you're not being honest here. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any good faith in this comment- if I m asking a simple question, someone changes its words and meaning, creates a little canvassing crusade around and a mess and the same time I m the one to be blamed for this situation? Isn't more than obvious whose mistake and responsibility that is? But my comment on honesty regards the double standards editors have for the same sources: reliable when they are debunking and unreliable when they refer to even a controversial aspect of the topic --George1918 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George1918, don't change the subject. You made statements immediately above that are not exact quotes of what you actually said. You added a number of qualifying words that didn't exist in your original statements at Talk:Homeopathy. Your statements above are thus misleading and can give editors who were not involved in the discussions at Talk:Homeopathy the impression that we have somehow misrepresented you. No, your original statements were simple and thus open to interpretation. Here are the first of your statements questioning whether the journal Homeopathy is a "reliable source":

• The article [ Homeopathy ] states that homeopathic remedies (high dilutions) are indistinguishable from water and the article [journal Homeopathy] disputes that. This a reliable source - correct? --George1918 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC) [I had to add identification for each use of the word "article", since George1918 was referring to two different things.]

• Did you make up your minds yet? Is it "homeopathy" a reliable source or not? It cannot be both. --George1918 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

After that last statement, PPdd formed a poll to clear up that question. The results of the poll provided some good explanations for why it can indeed be both.

So don't try to mislead others here by making statements that aren't true. You didn't ask "Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy?" That may have been your "meaning", as you state above, but that was not clear when you made your original, simple, statements. You made the two statements above and neither time was it clear you meant "for reporting various claims of homeopathy" or "included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes". If you had done that there would have been no confusion or need for a poll. No George1918, my reply to you was in good faith. I just point out how your original statements were simple and ambiguous, and how your big objection above is very misleading. That's it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. If you create a poll or request for comment it is appropriate to discuss with fellow editors first and not to take their question change its words and then add your interpretation. Adler said the same and he is right in that.--George1918 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little while ago I raised an issue at this noticeboard about this user who refuses to justify a reinsertion of texts at Independent Payment Advisory Board which have been seriously challenged. The editor continually reinserts the texts. For instance here, here, here, here, here, and here, The editor accepts that I have explained why I have deleted the texts but says only that my explnations were "incoherent" and has so far refused to justify his or her own reasons for inserting the texts. The editor has unfortunately re-emerged and begun inserting the offending texts yet again.

I have checked the edit history of this user and it is very typical of accounts created for sockpuppetry. The early edits are nearly all inconsequential edits moving texts around via cut and paste (sometimes in different edits) and slightly rewording. Hardly any of the edits had any meaningful impact on the content of Wikipedia until the editor began editing this article and its predecessor. I have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged, but his or her editing behavior for trying to reinsert them after I deleted them leaves me to think that they may have been. I have been challenged several times about my suspicion of sockpuppety at this article and asked to raise a formal complaint. I have trouble doing so because the complaint procedure requires me to name another user as the so called sockmaster but I have no idea who that may be. Notwithstanding this, the editing behavior of this editor is unacceptable and I ask that an edit ban be imposed.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted dispute resolution? This looks very much like a content dispute at core, and it is significantly easier to identify tendentious editing when consensus has been clarified by a broader group of participants. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution with a probable sockpuppet? Have you looked at the editor's editing history? That does not seem likely to produce much of a result. I have listed all the problems with the text he or she is inserting and just refuses to justify the edits. Did you look at the issues I raised? The users inserts are clearly problematic.Hauskalainen (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI is another board. And yes, you must name a sockmaster for a report there and not just continue to accuse the account of socking without any evidence save your suspicions. You "have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged"? Well, do some homework and see if you can determine a sockmaster (if it is indeed a sock). This is the third time you've filed a report here concerning this exact same editor and issue within a week. You were advised after the first report filed on the 28th to let the WQA run its course, and even that's been archived as well because of lack of input. The fact that the last AN/I report filed two days ago was archived without any input from anyone just might tell you that you are possibly beating a dead horse. "Try dispute resolution" is some very good advice you might want to take. Are you planning on filing this report here yet again if it gets archived? I sincerely hope not... Doc talk 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really does not matter WHO is the sockmaster, the account has all the chacteristics of a sock. I'd suggest the WP:DUCK test is relevant here.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Doc notes, we can't treat this person as though he is a sock without some evidence that he is a sock. Even if he had prior experience on Wikipedia, he might be a user in good standing under a "clean start", for instance. The advantage of dispute resolution is that in drawing others into the conversation, you make the problems more apparent to outsiders. His response to you, that your explanations are "incoherent", is hardly in keeping with expected behavioral standards, but it is not alone sufficient cause for blocking. There does seem to be edit warring in the article, but as an outsider I cannot easily determine who is at fault and to what degree. The more people to nail down consensus, the easier it becomes to see who is ignoring it to promote their own preference. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has editing account has edited very few articles in its very brief history. I suggest that someone look at all of them because it will only take a minute or two to compare the before and after edits that the account has made. There is no need to be selective (i.e. for me to suggest which ones to look at). These are the typical edits of accounts used for suckpuppetry and quite unlike those of serious editors.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like edit warring and thus is blockworthy. Any admin should be able to do it immediately since the editor in question knows they are doing it against the wishes of another editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor would that be? The one mentioned in the report here or the one filing it? They have each been reverting against the wishes of another editor. This is why it's much easier to tell who is being disruptive when multiple people are involved in a conversation. It may be tedious, but it's worthwhile, when the content is not obvious to those unfamiliar with the issues.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine Brangifer means User:Intermittentgardener because I gave a very detailed explanation of all my edits at the TALK page. User:Intermittentgardener 's contribution was just to admit that I had explained them in great detail and then just went on to say that they were "incoherent". That is is hardly engaging in the normal editing process.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained below a key element here that I think cannot be ignored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the only other person to have weighed in at the talk page seems to feel that you are the tendentious editor ([41]; [42]). Uninvolved bystanders who do not know you or any of the participants in the page cannot easily determine what's going on based on the little bit of interaction provided. It is not our job to lay the groundwork for a listing here, but yours. If you think he is a sockpuppet, you must provide evidence that he is disruptively using multiple accounts. If you think he is tendentious, you should provide us with clear evidence that he is the disruptive element in this article. Otherwise, people will do as evidently they have been doing: glance at your listing and ignore it, because it is not easily resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intermittentgardener should have definitely engaged with discussion before performing all of those reverts, but Hauskalainen can be disruptive, IMO. I've had to warn about/clean up their WP:SOAP/advocacy/WP:V issues as of late.[43][44] Jesanj (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left this note on User talk:Intermittentgardener:

• "You need to read WP:BRD. This is the only known method for determining when an edit war starts and who started it. Discussion doesn't justify continued editing of the contentious material. You must reach a consensus first. To do otherwise is to treat the article like a battlefield."

While BRD isn't policy, it's still very useful. Even when both parties end up in an edit war and may need to be sanctioned for it, fairness and justice require that the degree of blame be determined and that both parties not be judged with the same degree of harshness. BRD is the tool that helps to determine this. The point of BRD is to force editors to reach a consensus on the talk page before making more controversial edits, REGARDLESS of who is right. Many edit warriors think that as soon as they have started the "D"iscussion on the talk page, that they are then free to just continue making controversial edits. Not so. Not at all. That's battlefield behavior, and again, it makes no difference whether they are right or wrong. I have often seen blocks of equal length handed out to both editors because some admin was too lazy to form a just opinion of what was happening. That's blind justice, and justice isn't supposed to be blind or arbitrary. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question, of course, is who is behind the battlefield behavior. On the 25th of January, Hauskalainen made these sweeping changes to an article in which he had not substantively participated before (except in moving it). User:Intermittentgardener reverted ([45]) and left a note at the talk page ([46]) This is so far in accordance with WP:BRD. Hauskalainen made major changes and was reverted, with objection logged at the talk.

The following day, Hauskalainen responded with a note at 03:29, 26 January 2011 and then, three minutes later, without allowing time for any feedback, reverted the contributor who had objected to his sweeping changes. WP:BRD says “The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D"… The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.” There was no waiting for agreement here; Hauskalainen boldly edited the article, encountered reversion & objections, and (although he did respond to the objections) restored his preferred version without waiting for consensus.

It’s quite true that User:Intermittentgardener’s contributions to the article and talk page subsequent to this act are also inappropriate, but is it a unilateral problem? It looks to me like there are two people not following proper consensus procedures here...and it seems like the person who responded to the objection and restored the disputed changes before anybody had a chance to discuss launched the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Seems to me Hauskalainen is filibustering the talk page and Intermittentgardener is to an extent brushing it off, not ideal, but understandable. BRD isn't the whole answer here. Superficially it looks to me that Intermittentgardener's edits are ok and Hauskalainen is editing tendentiously, but it's going to take more examination that I don't feel likely to attempt. I do think some uninvolved editors should look at it. The very first section in Hauskalainen's big reply in [47] jumps out as dubious (the part mentioning WP:OPINION to remove some comments of a senior US congressperson involved in passing the legislation, which seem obviously significant under NPOV). Hauskalainen is removing a lot of sourced info without consensus and at a certain point has to consider WP:PRESERVE. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like both editors are so deeply involved that third parties need to come in, separate them, and force a pause in editing while consensus is sought among the two and some third parties. Maybe an RfC will be required.

Whatever the case, temporary and immediate article protection seems justified. That often does the trick. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24h page protection sounds ok to me, re-applied if warring resumes afterwards. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Article protected for 24 hours; if edit warring resumes afterwards, further protection may be necessary or blocks may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uninvolved editors should also look at the diffs in dispute, including checking them against sources. For example, Intermittentgardener here says Rep. Pete Stark "issued a 14-page talking point report" cited to this. The cited article just says "report", and "talking point" is a somewhat perjorative term connoting propaganda. That stuck out at me so I looked into it; I'm not claiming it's part of a pattern (which would take further investigation). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's information, the editor with whom I have had this problem has now been engaging in what I regard as blatant POV pushing and I have placed a warning about this at his talk page here. The editor followed this by dismissing my complaints and then raised a complaint against me here at the main Administrator's noticeboard. Well they say attack is the best form of defence, so it was to be expected, but its a bit deceptive of the editor not to have drawn attention to the fact that his account has been identified by me as a possible sock and accused of both editing against the rules by not engaging at TALK and now for blatant POV. The good guy/bad guy routine is also being played out with the another tendentious editor UserJesanj having called out User:Intermittentgardener for apparent canvassing. I am sure that User:Intermittentgardener will just say that he has been drawing in other editors who may have commented. Some of these are editors such as User:Angel's flight are ones who appear to follow his line of editing (if not quite the same style) but certainly not all.Hauskalainen (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Moonriddengirl. On your home page I think I read recently that you welcome comments about your actions as an Admin, especially if they seem wrong. So I hope you don't mind me saying the following. You seem to accept that User:Intermittentgardener’s contributions to the article actions were inappropriate as well his responses to me at the article talk page and his own talk page, but it seems to me that you have not given me a fair hearing here. You implied that we are as bad as each other. I have given very detailed explanations of what is wrong with this user's edits, for example here and here. At no time has User:Intermittentgardener made any serious attempt to answer these issues. I have pointed out that the editor has all the characteristics of a sock (a recent editor who makes completely inconsequential edits to a handful of articles such as slight wording changes and moving texts around) before weighing in and placing highly contentious and highly POV edits to another (Independent Payment Advisory Board). This article, the subject of which is the subject from some quarters of a political campaign against health care reform, is a clear candidate for POV pushing and I am surprised that you are not alert to this possibility. I fail to see why you could possibly think that this is a matter of equivalence. I am disappointed that you blocked the article and I would hope that you or another admin can unblock it as this is clearly not a case of two editors with equally strong opinions edit warring with no give and take on either side. I have justified each of my edits in great detail and the other editor simply does not engage.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hausakalainen, it would help if you could identify the editor who you think Intermittentgardener (I.G.) is a sock of. Otherwise it's just another of those vague suspicions that might have some grounding but really can't be acted on. The page protection was ok per there is no deadline since so many reversions is never good, and tendentious editing (if it is happening) may be making the article worse. I've been regretting not suggesting 48h instead of 24h protection to give outside editors a bit more time to make sense of the diffs. Yes I think we all know that POV pushing goes on in political topics. I didn't see any obvious POV in a couple minutes of looking at I.G.'s edits. Not seeing a POV is usually a sign that the person is editing neutrally, but the subject matter in dispute is very complicated for an outsider like me to size up, so I may well have missed something. Your note on I.G.'s talk page is more informative than the earlier one on the article talk page in that it tried to identify a POV being pushed. I'll see if I can look at it more tomorrow; Brangifer's suggestion of an RFC might also be warranted. I think the content discussion should stay on the article talk page rather than spreading all over the wiki. Do you think you could link your user_talk:I.G. message to the article talk page? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can add [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Intermittentgardener&oldid=412027885#Your_POV_editing_is_unacceptable this link to the article talk page, but the issue is primarily with the editors actions and not with the article. I thought I made the reasons for claims of POV pretty explicit. POV is often done with promotion and demotion of content, with the deletion of texts not favorable to the editor's POV and by the use of WP:undue to push fringe ideas and theories. I have now raised what partly the same issue at WP:Finge noticeboard, but this issue also affects the edits of other users. To be frank, there are several editors engaging in POV pushing to various degrees at the IPAB and Death Panel articles.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hauskalainen, I don't mind; I would not expect you to necessarily agree with my view. But as I have explained above, when a contributor reverts you and objects at the talk page, it is not part of the consensus process to restore your changes prior to pursuing conversation. That you explained why you believed your edits were reasonable does not mean that other contributors to the talk page are going to be convinced. I've quoted from the widely cited essay WP:BRD to explain that reverting somebody's reversion is not part of the process. This is also encoded in policy: "When there is a more serious dispute over an edit, the consensus process becomes more explicit. Editors open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic." There are few emergencies on Wikipedia that justify bypassing conversation (which is a give and take, not a declaration followed by unilateral action). Reverting prior to reaching agreement is a provocative action.

In terms of the neutrality of his posts, it is not the purpose of this noticeboard to determine what content should be in this article. As I advised you above, you need to pursue dispute resolution. If there is clear consensus for content, then administrators will be able to help deal with contributors who persist in disrupting it. Until that clear consensus exists, except in blatantly obvious cases, this is not the appropriate forum. There are quite a few others listed at WP:DR that can help settle content issues, and we do not ban or block contributors (as you requested here) on suspicions (without clear evidence) of sock puppetry or of disagreeing with another person, even if they behave poorly--at least not without a clear pattern of persistent behavior after efforts to address it through, yes, dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am getting very annoyed with you. I asked you very kindly here to look again at the allegation you made that the two editors at dispute were as bad as each other because I thought you were characterizing me unfairly. But quite clearly I have been engaging (or attempting too at least) with this user at several talk pages with very detailed reasons as to why his edits are unacceptable and he or she just fails to engage. You seem to have just repeated that same thing above by suggesting that I am doing something wrong. Clearly I am an established editor who uses the Talk pages extensively. The other editor is clearly a newbie with dubious editing credentials and does not respond to criticism of his edits. Its hardly a case of "six of one and half a dozen of the other". BRD only works if there is a D and so far the D has come only from me. There is very little to be gained by not reverting and hoping that this particular editor will have a change of heart. I ask you again, very sincerely, to look again at your characterization of my editing. I would hate to have to take this matter further, but you are, to an extent, tarnishing my edit reputation.Hauskalainen (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote where I said that the two editors at dispute were as bad as each other. I generally avoid such weighted value judgments. It is my position that you are both at fault in this engagement and that you were the first to deviate from expected behavioral standards. I've placed differences above and explained, with policy quotations, why you should build consensus before reverting a reverting. He should not have refused to engage you; you should not have continued the chain of reversion before giving him or anyone else a chance to respond to your comments at the talk page. I'll note also that Wikipedia:Edit warring says, "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action." You do not have to wait for him "to have a change of heart". The two of you are a small selection among the thousands of people who edit Wikipedia who may help to settle disputes. If you feel compelled to take the matter further, you are welcome to do so. See WP:ADMINABUSE. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hauskalainen is engaging in very extreme POV pushing, edit warring, constantly insulting other users (He likes to accuse others of being sockpuppets), and posting frivolous complaints here. Previously, he has been warned by numerous users to stop his behavior and has even been blocked for edit warring. See User_talk:Hauskalainen, Wikiquette_alerts#User:Hauskalainen, Talk:Death_panel for but a small sample of the venom this guy spews. He is really out of control and needs a block. Intermittentgardener (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this situation. But I have observed Hauskalainen at work and talk at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for about 6 months. The worst I saw them do there is apply too much expertise to contributions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think User:Hauskalainen is doing great job on the PPACA article, fighting the vandals. I really appreciated his help with the article. I think User:Intermittentgardener is just trying to push his ideas via Wikipedia and remove all comments that do not comply with his point of view. Innab (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take a look at this ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive59#user:Hauskalainen] this [48] and this [49] before you jump to conclusions. Hauskalainen really is out of control and needs to be reined in. Intermittentgardener (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another end of this argument is at WP:ANI#editor User:Intermittentgardener (reposting after archive without comment). - David Biddulph (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continuation of the problems reported a couple of weeks ago at this board[50]. Mr. H does seem to be a bit clueless about how various policies are supposed to work, in addition to being very tendentious. Angel's flight (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified on my talkpage about this discussion because I had brief involvement in an RSN discussion started by Hauskalainen and in the Death Panel article linked to that. It doesn't seem very obvious to me what the complaint is, so I would ask Intermittentgardener to be more specific.--FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this page is not to be used for raising issues of this sort. But having been raised I should point out that User:Intermittentgardener is treating attack as the best possible defence. Just before he raised the allegation which commenced this thread I had issued a very detailed warning about his/her blatant POV pushing at the user's talk page here. And as has been said above I raised at AN/I an issue with User:Intermittentgardener. This was initially about his failure to answer allegations that his edits did not concur with editing policy, and now of course his POV pushing. I have alerted the administrators of my suspicions about the account being used for sock puppetry (it is a new account with relatively few edits to a few articles which had zero effect on them and then a series of edits to the article where I accuse the account of being used for POV pushing and politicizing Wikipedia) but it is hard to know who the sockmaster might be. I am not accusing anyone at this stage of being a puppet-master. There are certain editors at the article where POV pushing has been going on who are inclined to follow the same general line of editing such as User:Angel's flight and User:Jesanj but there is no way that I am prepared to say that either of them fits the bill. User:Angel's flight has undone several of my edits as has User:Jesanj. I see that User:Angel's flight was very quick to jump in and accuse me (above) of being "clueless" which is rather uncivil and not very dissimilar to User:Intermittentgardener's accusation that I was "incoherent". This happened following his accusation that I had deleted "properly sourced material" which I fully explained here and which he summarily dismissed without answering a single one of my points.Hauskalainen (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the sudden appearance and immediate leap to dispute resolution of Intermittentgardener and Angel's flight is unseemly. Both are semi-SPA's in closely related subjects, which isn't encouraging. Jesanj has been around for a while. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice restored removal of sourced text here under WP:Wikipedia is not censored, but we're also not Wikileaks. Can someone double-check me on this?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the other editor a 3RR warning. Haven't gotten to the source yet - does it confirm the material being removed? Alternatively, does this material really add a whole lot to this article? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For form's sake, I should note that you've reverted 3 times as well - I'm assuming you'll read this rather than a template on your talk page. Let's back off a bit and figure out where consensus lies, ok? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno, thanks. I'm off it for now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This actually involves two articles - The above United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group article and the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group. The removal from the "Naval" article is a section that begins with the idea that the subject's organization "can only be speculated upon", and proceeds to speculate for two paragraphs. I don't have an issue with that removal, though it should have been discussed first. The "Navy" article, meanwhile, is a sourced statement about the structure of the organization - and that shouldn't really be removed without discussion, if the source is indeed reliable. I don't think, personally, that it adds a whole lot to the article, but that's just me. I'd like to hear from others, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone more knowledgeable than I wants to tackle the merge, these are on the exact same topic with slightly different but useful variations. I am not married to the stuff staying, I am just against censorship of published material in an international encyclopedia not beholden to a single set of classified rules.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can work on it. I've also blocked User:LMT1978 31 hours for edit warring, as they ignored my notice and reverted again (once on each article). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see several discussions on both talk pages encouraging a merge, and I see no sourced information at the "Navy" article (apart from the bit under dispute, but that's discussed at the "Naval" article anyway). Since everything substantive is already at the "Naval" article, would a redirect be in order? Or a full history merge? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would do a history merge to preserve it, and some of the stuff (graphics) differ.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only image in the Navy article is also in the Naval one, so images look ok. I'll take a crack at the histmerge later. Note also that LMT1978 was blocked indef for dropping a legal threat into his/her unblock request. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone probably needs to take the source, specialoperations.com, being cited in United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group, to the reliable sources noticeboard at some point. They don't appear to have come up before, they're used quite extensively and it's not at all obvious that they are reliable for anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. History merge complete, everything is now at the "Naval" article, and the "Navy" article redirects. I did not history-merge the talk pages, though the navy talk page redirects to the naval talk page. If I screwed something up, feel free to trout me and fix it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These articles seem like poor histmerge candidates due to parallel histories, per WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. Histmerging dissimilar pages interleaves their histories and creates large, useless diffs like this. Ultraexactzz, thanks for being willing to do the histmerge and performing it correctly. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the space of a few minutes, the above user has added material to the encyclopedia, reverted said material, came here to request a revdel, removed the request once it was complete, requested deletion of their userpage with a G7, blanked their talk page that contained a question from me about the first part of this sequence, and now changed both their userpage and usertalk to wikibreak notices 'for exams'. Is anyone else suspicious that this is a compromised account? I don't have much exposure to this editor so I don't know if this is S.O.P for them, and didn't see any indication that they are under mentorship or anything. Syrthiss (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's SOP, actually. Mentoring might not be a bad thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about getting a mentor a few days before, I looked for a list of "mentors". Couldn't finnd one. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I do have exams. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters is one list you could pick from. Good luck with the exams. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already adopted by Derild4921, I'm looking for a mentor, like a second view besides the adopter. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My account was just compromised, probably because I left the computer on and was still signed in. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 19:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, compromised accounts are blocked indefinitely. TNXMan 19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the rather trivial circumstances of the problem, perhaps this is a good time to reconsider that general approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please don't block me... --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DNBTT? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think a block is necessary here, Persus has his account back, maybe just an evil glare is all that is needed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<spam>User:Fetchcomms/Children and Wikipedia</spam>. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the issue. We don't know if Perseus has his account back or if it's still compromised. I won't take action here if there's no consensus for a block, but I think there should be some conversation about it. TNXMan 22:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your right to say that its odd, I would wait to see if anything else happens (vandalism etc) under his name before taking action. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note this edit which indicates account is compromised: [51]. Also, should someone consider revdeleting the content? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 22:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing that, I have indefinitely blocked the account as compromised. Discussion is, of course, welcome. TNXMan 22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will have to see if he requests an unblock. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Arakunem^Talk 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see Fetchcomms promotes an essay of his above, but doesn't mention that he himself would be considered a "child" by some people's yardsticks. Also the essay needs some copy-editing. I'll attend to that later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be considered a child by some people's yardsticks ... do you care to elaborate on this statement? I'm sure you're not alluding to my actual age, which I have never disclosed onwiki because I do not think it should be a factor in how people will inevitably judge me. Is your comment supposed to come off rather cold, or am I just misreading it? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We WP editors are by some yardstick all children of Jimbo and Whatsisname, so don't worry about it. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm back. In a new account, with permission. --Perseus8235 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now blocked again. I guess we're waiting for some sort of confirmation that this really the same person. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marta11 (talk · contribs) is persistently reposting material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. I suggest a permanent ban. --bender235 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient disruptive activity, unless you're accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet of one of the earlier ones. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can a few folks please look into this discussion at the External Links noticeboard and the parties involved? It seems to be the latest in a running battle between a few different editors and it's really getting out of hand if you look into the different interactions they're having there and elsewhere. This particular interaction seem notable to me but it would be good to have others look into this and help cool things down, perhaps with some wise words, warnings, or more drastic action. ElKevbo (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that someone would have looked into this. I've been subjected to an unmitigated stream of abuse. Incivility:"LMFAO", "Return of the Clown""FUCKOFF""LMFAO", Canvassing, "FYI", False edit summaries:"Fix", "Vandalism", "m" , etc, etc, etc. I've sought with reasoned, civil, discussion to address issues such as the suitability of undergraduate student essay's and self-flagged guesses on subjects beyond a ref's area of expertise - nothing I've done calls for such a wave of aggressive trolling, I am astonished that it is allowed to happen at such a level for so long even while other editors complain at the WP:ELN and here. 99.135.168.164 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin sarekofvulcan said i could have my twinkle back after a week and a half. Its been 2 weeks now and so i would like it back. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you gave says no such thing. --B (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the diff you gave said that a week and a half isn't long enough. Kansan (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone65, your eagerness leads me to believe that not having Twinkle access for another, oh, four months, might not be a bad thing for you and the project. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misunderstood then. She did not give a time limit on my talk page besides a while, and later the above quote. Someone65 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved bystander here, but this reminds me of back when I was a kid on Christmas morning, trying to wake my parents so we can open presents. Dad would sleepily say "Later...," and I would wait all of about thirty seconds before I tried to wake them again, saying "It's later!" I think what's being said here is that the amount of time served isn't the issue, but the amount of improvement of your editing. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i have made 400 constructive edits and several non-automated vandal reverts since the twinkle removal and created 1 article. I participated in many proposals and requests. I think that is considered imporvement. Someone65 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd look for at least 100 non-automated vandal reverts with very few errors, before restoring twinkle. Twinkle in general probably causes more problems than it solves. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

400 constructive edits is about half the number of superfluous or erroneous warnings you issued with Twinkle in a single day (January 18). Keep at it. --King Öomie 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my warnings were not erroneous. They were simply out of date. I did not know you were not allowed to give warnings a long time after the IP made the vandalous error. My mistakes were in good faith and they wont happen again. Someone65 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were "erroneous". Keep editing without Twinkle (nobody needs it) and prove to everyone's satisfaction that you will indeed use Twinkle properly in the future. It's no badge of honour to be a Twinkle user. Heck, even I'm allowed to use Twinkle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo that. My entire editing history was created without the use of any automated tools. That includes vandal warnings, vandal reporting to AIV, maintenance edits, article tagging, etc. and now that I'm an admin it includes blocking, protecting, deletion closures, etc. I've never found a need for Twinkle. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Source and edits on the up and up. No admin assistance needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colleenwolfe (talk · contribs) has been adding 2010 population stats from a "Weldon Cooper Center" (found at coopercenter.org) to several Virginia town and city articles. I have never heard of this "Weldon Cooper Center" and generally population stats come directly from the U.S. Census Bureau, which will release their stats between now and April (depending on the size of the town). Should the stats going to the "Weldon Cooper Center" be reverted per AGF as an unreliable source or what? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, the University of Virginia's Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service? I'd treat that as reliable until proven otherwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, that's not really an administrative question regardless (it's about content); issues about RS should go to WP:RSN (usually only in the case where there's an actual dispute); the Cooper Center appears to be part of the University of Virginia and looks pretty legitimate;[56] but using US census figures directly is probably better IMO, since those are the same figures the Cooper Center uses anyway. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with quoting a source that is primarily a restatement of another source, (i.e. a local newspaper that runs an Associated Press story.) From the looks of this situation, the University of Virginia site seems to be synthesizing the Census data as it pertains to Virginia, and seems to be a better formatted source to quote than the Adobe Flash-based Census site. -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okie Dokie, just wanted to make sure things were on the up and up. Thanks for the responses. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Novus was Banned here from discussions and articles involving Creationism/Pseudoscience Topic Area Broadly Defined. Admin User:Dougweller closed and notified him of the ban. Since Then One Admin (User:Will Beback) Warned him for an infraction and I have warned him for another. Today I thumbed through his contributions and found multiple infractions Exhibit A Exhibit Exhibit C

This Seems pretty Straight forward to me and needing of appropriate action. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the two article edits are at the very least right on the line, but the Bigfin Squid article and image seem unrelated to Pseudoscience or Creationism. How is that AFD related to the topic ban?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I thought that those edits would not fall under this ban due to their content, but I will take that page off of my watchlist.--  Novus  Orator  03:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You must stay away from anything to do with cryptozoology which is linked to both Creationism and Pseudoscience. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently some 80kb of discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#The_Circus_.28film.29_-_Time_Traveler_.3F.3F.3F_.28part_2.29 on the topic of the extent to which George Clarke's time travel urban legend should be mentioned at The Circus (film). This topic (about which I could hardly care less) has been hashed out in numerous venues (apparently including Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22#The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ???, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Charlie Chaplin and time travel, Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Notability of 'time traveler' film in The Circus, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends, Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Time_travel_urban_legends). I have expressed the view several times that FTN is not a venue to pursue this discussion (there being no dispute whatever that physical time travel by living people is deeply fringe-y), but various parties disagree, and keep reviving the debate. May I suggest that some steps be taken to confine the discussion to Talk:The Circus (film), or even to bring it to a conclusion? At the very least, could it be kept off FTN? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was an iPhone - there's an app for that. --B (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rotfl. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The matter seems to have been brought there by Viriditas to seek some sort of consensus for removal of cited material. The matter had been there before, and the consensus was to leave it as a note or link. Most of the 80k+ discussion has been on everything but fringe-related topics. It never should have been discussed there. Not sure if the article discussion is the best place for it - esp. when three or four users seem to be declaring victory over two editors, but FTN is certainly not the place for it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It keeps coming back to the board because it keeps coming back to the article, incessantly, most recently here. Kenilworth says "(there being no dispute whatever that physical time travel by living people is deeply fringe-y), but various parties disagree, and keep reviving the debate." This is true, and that is why this has come and re-come before the fringe board. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Respectfully, this is not yet another place to argue that issue, Scotty. KT has pointed out (correctly, imo) that FTN was not the place to has voice personal grievances, concerns about NOT, V, RS. and NOTE. Applying FRINGE to the idea was simply wrong. It doesn't belong there, and KT asked that it leave the board. Three or four contributors thought it was a fine place to hash the matter out, and ignored him. He then came here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they ignored him because two editors do not dictate what is and is not to be discussed on a noticeboard. You and KT were the only editors at the Fringe noticeboard who argued that discussion of this topic (discussion of a "time traveler" in an article on the Chaplin film The Circus) does not belong at the fringe noticeboard. The rest of your post makes no sense, as I'm clearly not "arguing the issue" here, airing "personal grievances," etc. Parenthetically, I became involved in this topic when it was initially posted on the fringe noticeboard a couple of months ago. That is the purpose of the fringe noticeboard, to get new eyes on a topic, and as a new editor you may not be aware of that.ScottyBerg (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, respectfully, you might want to take another look at that discussion; FRINGE was only the least of a series of increasingly dislocated arguments to exclude 1-3 sentences from an article. It was repeatedly stated by others that FTN wasn't the place for the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that ScottyBerg agrees with my comment "FTN is not a venue to pursue this discussion ... but various parties disagree, and keep reviving the debate". I in turn agree with him that it is not up to a small group of editors to decide what is or is not discussed at FTN -- it is ultimately up to the community, and I hope that a consensus on that issue will emerge here, as that's why I brought it to this forum. However, he is mistaken in suggesting that the purpose of FTN is "to get new eyes on a topic": there are indeed ways of doing that, such as RFC. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've been fairly emphatic that FTN is the proper venue. Mischaraceterizing what I just said 1/8th of an inch above your comment is pretty lame. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you appear to have either misunderstood or misquoted what I said. However, I am happy to accept that you do not agree with me on this, and that you withdraw the statement that you did. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an RFC on this matter [[57]]. It seems to have a consensus for excluasion, as most of the dicusions have. I have susgested closing the FTN a couple of times now as no consensus, and its been rejected by both sides of the dispute. Here I ask that we have no consensus lets leave it. [[58]] Jack continues the debate [[59]][[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=411888892&oldid=411888328]][[60]] I again suggest we close this as no consensus[[61]]This time Scoty rejects it out right [[62]] So it is misleading to represent this as just one side constantly reopening this its not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focus people... the issue for this board isn't whether to discuss the time traveler claim in the article on the movie ... the issue for this board is whether continued argument and discussion of that question (at FTN and other places) rises to the level of disruption... and thus requires Admin action. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is disruption (and I am not sure that deciding that one user saying "I HAVE SPOKEN!" is not a reason to close a debate is disruptive) then its two sided disruption. I doubt that those who are saying that its not been decided its not a fringe theory (or that it should not be discused there) are being disruptive given that there is a clear majority on the RFC that seem to say it is fringe. I am less sure about the other side (that seems to be arguing against clear consensus for inclusion), but its not as clear cut as the actualy question (the FTN). FTN is less clear as to consensus (as I have said there appears to be no consensus on the FTN board).Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar: the discussion on the article talk page was already voluminous and daunting when I first lit upon this "circus" on the FTN page on 31 October. Consensus on the talk page, and in the RfC among uninvolved editors (broken out here[63], and the other venues has supported that consensus, which is that little or nothing on this trivia should appear in the article. What struck me initially about the talk page discussion in October [64] was the extent to which consensus had already been formed and yet there still was endless bickering. As I said previously, there would be no need for other venues if that consensus was accepted, and if there were no edits such as this[65] that are against the clear consensus everywhere this issue has been raised: the talk page, FTN, etc. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nickkid5 placed an undiscussed {{underconstruction}} tag on Density, and unlinked it from numerous pages. Based on the user's history of contributions, it looks like a prank. Blacklist from WP:Twinkle? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be ~200 pages. I think they've all been un-unlinked. DMacks (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if he does it again. Could have been an accident... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems sensible. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, there is no need to discuss adding {{underconstruction}} before adding it, and it can be removed by anyone if the article is not being heavily edited. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to blacklist if he does it again - simple indef is good enough. T. Canens (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to reach a discussion consensus at the Talk:Planned Parenthood page, user WikiManOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps collapsing my replies.

• 3rd collapsed comment
• 2nd collapsed comment
• 1st collapsed comment and here

A summary is now provided on the talk page of the previous events as follows, which included 5 reverts of material that had been on the page's controversy section for multiple years:

1. The previous Controversies section had much of the same content until the past week that it had:

• 1 year ago
• 2 years ago
• 3 years ago
• 4 years ago

2. A recent scandal made headlines for Planned Parenthood videos surfacing claiming to show proper reporting by the institution, similar to past scandals.

• Washington Post
• ABC News
• Reuters
• Associated Press

3. WikiManOne on February 2nd deletes the controversies section entirely, without prior discussion here on the board, replacing it with a version void of controversy mention, and defending Planned Parenthood. Half an hour later, I revert it as vandalism. An IP address of 98.154.76.21 then removes the section again. PhGustaf restores the section. WikiManOne, despite the discussion seen above here on the Talk Page attempting to find consensus, again removes the whole section on controversies a 2nd time.

• 08:03, WikiManOne 1st section removal
• 08:30, I restore section 1st time
• 21:18, 98.154.76.21 section removal
• 21:37, PhGustaf 1st section restore
• 23:29 WikiManOne 2nd section removal

4. On February 3rd, PhGustaf restores the section a 2nd time. WikiManOne then removes the section a 3rd time. Haymaker returns the controversy section. Sitush removes it. I restore it. A member named NYankees51 then makes some edits with new sections not discussed. WikiManOne again removes the entire controversies section a 4th time. Kenatipo restores the controversy section, asking in his notes for discussion. Sitush removes the section again. Kenatipo restores it. WikiManOne removes the section a 5th time.

• 03:07, PhGustaf 2nd section restore
• 03:13, WikiManOne 3rd section removal
• 09:22, Haymaker restore
• 09:35, Sitush 1st section removal
• 10:22, I restore 2nd time
• 15:12, NYankees51 edit
• 19:23 WikiManOne 4th section removal
• 19:35, Kenatipo 1st restore
• 19:38, Sitush 2nd section removal
• 20:08, Kenatipo 2nd restore
• 20:11, WikiManOne 5th section removal

5. Admin NuclearWarfare on February 3rd protects WikiManOne's removal of the section, even though it was just him and Sitush trying to remove it with myself, Kenatipo, Haymaker, PhGustaf, and Jgabbard all in favor of having the section restored.

• 21:04, NuclearWarfare page protection

On February 4th, Admin MSCJ then blanks the whole controversies section because WikiManOne requests it.

• 16:23, MSCJ blanking

All of this can be seen from the Planned Parenthood page history. Let me know if I've missed anything. I was looking over it all, and just now realizing how much the 'consensus' for section removal has consisted solely of WikiManOne, Sitush, and a 98 something IP address, with at least 5 people, myself included, all opposed and reverting the removal.

Because of the actions of 2 users, Sitush and WikiManOne, a whole section has been removed that existed much in its current state for the past three years, despite being outnumbered at least 5 to 3 when it comes to consensus. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my involvement was concerned with reverts, it was done so because I felt that there was a genuine and ongoing disagreement taking place regarding POV, undue weight, tone etc and, as I said repeatedly in the discussion, I felt it better not to include in the article something that was clearly generating some considerable angst until the differences were resolved. Simple as that. I neither agreed nor disagreed with the detailed arguments going on as I am not sufficiently informed to make a judgment (indeed, I felt that in fact the wording of the article was US-centric, which was not a point of controversy).

I did not realise at the time that this controversy was a re-run of previous ones and regret that I did not check this. However, it seemed a genuine enough, and significant enough, disagreement that the matter should be dealt with "behind the scenes" on the talk page where consensus could be reached. Tbh, though, just because something has existed for three years or so is not in itself proof that it is/was acceptable. I thought that any information which aroused that much feeling ought not to be in the main article until contributors had discussed its impact. This they have subsequently done, If I got that wrong, then I got it wrong and apologise for that. I will check three years of history beforehand next time.

I'm not happy with the term "activism" which is used above and would appreciate clarification from the ip user. Sitush (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the word 'activism' to actions instead. I noticed recently from your talk page that WikiManOne likes to notify you of discussions he needs teamwork on, so I can see that you may not have been aware of the page's history. Removing an extensive section on controversies with a newly written 1-paragraph section favorable in tone to the organization, by someone (WikiManOne) whose profile admits he's a financial donor to Planned Parenthood, at a time when the matter is undergoing major public notoriety and scandal though makes this a very controversial decision. It seems you and others may have been unaware just how established the section WikiManOne is trying to remove, is. Given the public events, I don't see why - since there's strong disagreement on consensus - the established section was not continued to exist in its current form until a better alternative could be agreed upon, rather than removing all mention of controversy from the page so the public can't see it when it's newsworthy. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm concerned with WikiManOne on multiple points, the edit warring, the potential canvassing, as well as conflict of interest. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for changing the word. I have no idea if it was appropriate for WikiManOne's actions or not, but it did not reflect mine. I also do not know if WM1 is canvassing other people. I do know that s/he is aware that I do not always agree with their viewpoint, and so I think the idea that I am being canvassed by WM1 is a bit far-fetched. Are some people are too close to these events to be able to view things objectively, which is what I've tried to do? Sitush (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiManOne is on a crusade to mold the related pages to his liking. How he's getting away with it is anybody's guess at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's no need to guess about this. Wikipedia is mostly American, and the wedge issue that WikiManOne is harping on is the one thing in American politics that practically every American regresses to tribalist impulses over. No doubt most Americans (I am one, for clarity) have looked at some of the problems with Macedonia or Ireland and been perfectly bewildered, not only at how modern civilized people can behave so abominably, but how they can have such a big hole in their introspective abilities that they aren't even able to see that they are behaving abominably. Well, for American culture, this is the WP:PLAGUE trigger, and so we are seeing abominable behavior, and we can't expect the participants to be able to see that they're behaving abominably. It needs to be treated the same way as we treat editors who say that they are the arbiters of what those other pieces of devil's filth may call themselves, when those others call themselves Irishmen, Macedonians, et cetera. It should not be treated differently, or it will follow the same pattern. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good summary. By way of background, the Planned Parenthood article has been surprisingly stable over the years, but has gone to hell in a handbasket over the psat 48 hours or so. The IP editor in this thread is a major, though not the only, contributor to the rapid deterioration. Another recent gem, from JGabbard (talk · contribs): "Fox and WorldNewsDaily need to be made aware of this situation, as it could further encourage defunding of PP." (Immediately followed by a demand that another editor withdraw because of "bias"). It's kind of a clusterfuck, and I agree with Gavia that it should be stomped on, so the page can return to the relative calm and stability it's enjoyed in the past. MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I at fault, according to you? I have sought to oppose the change of a 3 year section in 48 hours. The reason the page is not returning to 'calm and stability' is that WikiManOne has inserted a whole new section, that removes all mentions of controversy, completely contrary to the one which existed for years, and has used admins to keep it in place. The comments after JGabbard's were:

"This made me laugh... I know passions are running high, but to even think that Fox News reporting on some editors disagreeing over one section in an article that few people read.... would lead to defunding Planned Parenthood. We're not that important, with all due respect.Mattnad (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, true. And the point of this discussion isn't to bash Planned Parenthood or include criticism of it, per se, on the page. I've tried to keep my personal views out of this discussion as much as possible. What I feel about the organization is irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes at least. The main thing is the Controversy/Criticism section fairly and objectively present the major controversies and criticisms that have arisen in proportion to their prominence in the news. That's all. I just want the WP:DUE guidelines followed. This newest controversy, like others before it, have been major issues in the news, and ought to be mentioned. I am fine with seeing Planned Parenthood's defenses mentioned as well - but this ought to be mentioned so people are aware of it. The events of the past few days have been to the effect of covering up information on these controversies that's been on the page for 3+ years. To remove it should have a very good explanation, not edit warring to keep it in place with admin page blocking as enforcement. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.248.164 (talk)

As with the thread above, what is it that someone would like an admin to do here? Sure, blanking rather than fixing the controversy section in Planned Parenthood was less than a stellar idea. (A better idea might be to simply turn it into a history and give the good with the bad as they happen in chronological order, as to not give undue weight.) But there's nothing there that an admin needs to do to fix. As for WikiManOne, he certainly hasn't done anything blockable. So I don't see what admin action is required here. --B (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I sort of wish we took a harder line with obvious, single-purpose agenda-driven editing, especially when it disrupts editing and leads previously stable articles to deteriorate. That could take the form of handing out short-term topic bans to encourage single-issue editors to branch out. In an ideal Wikipedia, we'd take single-purpose agenda-driven editing at least as seriously as we take vandalism, including issuing blocks - because this sort of thing is at least as damaging to the encyclopedia as vandalism. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you're operating from the naive perspective that anyone cares about "damaging to the encyclopedia" as opposed to maintaining a vibrant and exciting social club. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stop with the frivolous reports? I will be happy to defend any of my actions if an neutral admin would like to look into them, I will no longer be responding directly to accusations made by this user as he operates on the presumption that I am editing in bad faith, which is incorrect. If the issue re "single-issue editing" was directed at me (which I don't think it was), I suggest someone take a look at my previous contributions, only a small portion of these have been made on related topics, I have only been active in this particular area recently... apparently people don't appreciate my bringing notions of NPOV and other viewpoints to these articles. _WikiMan^One 05:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't remove a long-standing section for the purpose of discussing it offline. Period. We don't remove well established, well documented opposing points of view in hopes of achieving "neutrality." Period. User:WikiManOne's approach to editing has been disruptive. If he continues to use this approach, he should be banned from editing. Period. And that's the opinion of a neutral, un-involved admin about this matter. Rklawton (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What policy exactly would I be banned under? Also, I note that the IP address filing this report claims on his talk page to be a banned user, who before his ban had a topic ban on abortion articles. So it appears that I am not the one deliberately flouting policy here... _WikiMan^One 16:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing disruptively in violation of WP:NOT, specifically WP:BATTLEGROUND - "Wikipedia is not a place to ... carry on ideological battles." How many venues and ANI threads have you popped up at in the last 48 hours because of this crusade? I'm a pro-choice liberal myself, and IMO you make us all look bad. You clearly need a break from this topic.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can an uninvolved editor take a look at the talk page of Savelephant (talk · contribs). I don't think much of his/case but others may feel differently. Probably best if discussion happens there. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Moondyne 06:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them a welcome and some advice. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to stalk several editors to the point of harassment. Among others;

• After an content dispute with User:Mamalujo on Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience in early August, Roscelese has followed Mamalujo to several articles leading to protracted disputes
• After receiving a warning on her talk page from User:Lionelt on Nov. 17th[66], Roscelese followed Lionelt to Christine Bakke, a page she had never edited before and reintroduced content that Lionelt had removed [67]
• After receiving a warning on her talk page from me on Dec. 8th[68], Roscelese followed me all over creation including to AfDs
• After a content dispute with User:Cloonmore on Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Roscelese followed Cloonmore to Milan Vuitch, a page she had never edited before to cast doubt on the content Cloonmore had added [69]
• After receiving a warning on her talk page from User:Brewcrewer on Dec. 26th[70], Roscelese followed Brewcrewer to Civilian casualty ratio, a page she had never edited before and reverted his edit [71]
• After a content dispute with User:Geremia on Excommunication of Margaret McBride, Roscelese followed Geremia to Religion and abortion, a page she had never edited before and reverted Geremia's contribution [72]
• After a dispute with User:SlimVirgin, Roscelese very likely followed her to The Reader [73], a page she had never editedd before, editwarring until blocked [74]
• After a content dispute with User:Kleinzach regarding Rescue opera starting Jan. 28th, Roscelese followed Kleinzach to Burlesque (disambiguation) and Talk:Burlesque where she opposed him in a merger proposal [75]
• After recieving a warning on her talk page from User:Lionelt earlier this very morning [76], Roscelese followed him to Bisexual Resource Center, GenderPAC and En femme, all pages she had never edited before, where she reverted his edits [77], [78], [79]

I'm sure there are other inicdents, these were just the most obvious. Not only has Roscelese been around long enough to know better, she was specifically warned about stalking here. - Haymaker (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wow, there is just no end to the frivolous reports the anti-choice editors among us will file. ridiculous.. _WikiMan^One 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has shown on multiple occasions an unwillingness to work as a part of the community on wikipedia in a civil manner. The most recent manifestations of this can be seen on his talk page where I cordially asked him to remove some content from his userpage, which he refused to do, prompting me to file a civility report. He responded with the same general attitude to the editor who handled the case at that noticeboard which can be seen on the user's talk page. User talk:Kenatipo

In a separate incidence, three days ago I added a {{noindex}} template to his sandbox, the user violated Wikipedia:UP#CMT by removing it from his sandbox, along with the impolite term "ASSHOLE" being used in his edit description [80] to describe yours truly as a result of my actions that were in response to:

"Editors may add {{noindex}} (optional "|visible=yes") to a userspace page that is a source of concern, which will remove it from search engines and can also provide a lightweight alternative to deletion, or prevent external indexing during discussion. It will not affect the page for legitimate userspace purposes or on the internal search engine, and should not be used to make a point, nor removed without discussion or consensus."

Unfortunately, the user violated both WP:CIVIL and the previously noted guideline in response.

In yet another case today, in this edit, the user accuses does not assume good faith with yet another editor by undoing her edits to collapse discussion that was unrelated to the move.

All the above incidents have been active in the past 24 hours. This user shows a pattern of not assuming good faith on the part of those he disagrees with or confronts him. I leave it up to the admins to choose how to deal with these egregious issues. _WikiMan^One 17:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]