Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive659

I have just blocked 192.148.117.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment. Could someone who knows about rangeblocks consider whether a rangeblock is feasible to cover other IPs that have evidently used by the same person to make the same kind of recent attacks against the same editor (Bidgee (talk · contribs)? The other Ips are:

• 192.148.117.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 192.148.117.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW I would try it myself but I don't know how and WP:Rangeblock advises admins who don't know how to seek assistance. I don't want to accidentally block Canberra from wikipedia. Normally blocking Canberra would be good for the project but I'm in Canberra today and don't want to rangeblock myself.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's 192.148.117.64/27, 32 IPs. Any objection to proceed, or is the collateral damage too big? KrakatoaKatie 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the /29 ranges under that /27 is already blocked, but there is a fair amount of account creation activity under that /27. If you want to block it, don't make it too long (like 1-2 days at the most). –MuZemike 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the /29 earlier, hoping it would be enough... obviously not. 192.148.117.64/27 given 24 hours; short due to MuZemike's comments. Courcelles 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

[1] and similar URLs provide some guidance as to which IP ranges are allocated by country, if you're worried about blocking an entire region or country (Like I inadvertently did once). –MuZemike 03:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just blocked 192.148.117.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment. Could someone who knows about rangeblocks consider whether a rangeblock is feasible to cover other IPs that have evidently used by the same person to make the same kind of recent attacks against the same editor (Bidgee (talk · contribs)? The other Ips are:

• 192.148.117.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 192.148.117.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW I would try it myself but I don't know how and WP:Rangeblock advises admins who don't know how to seek assistance. I don't want to accidentally block Canberra from wikipedia. Normally blocking Canberra would be good for the project but I'm in Canberra today and don't want to rangeblock myself.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's 192.148.117.64/27, 32 IPs. Any objection to proceed, or is the collateral damage too big? KrakatoaKatie 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the /29 ranges under that /27 is already blocked, but there is a fair amount of account creation activity under that /27. If you want to block it, don't make it too long (like 1-2 days at the most). –MuZemike 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the /29 earlier, hoping it would be enough... obviously not. 192.148.117.64/27 given 24 hours; short due to MuZemike's comments. Courcelles 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

[2] and similar URLs provide some guidance as to which IP ranges are allocated by country, if you're worried about blocking an entire region or country (Like I inadvertently did once). –MuZemike 03:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR User warned to talk more and revert less, kept reverting first and talking after.

I'll try to present this in an objective manner:

• There has been some contentious editting on Political prisoner (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.
• My involvement commences at Talk:Political_prisoner#Recent_contentious_editing
• Several very new editors were making good-faith attempts to add new material, providing sources, etc.
• There was insufficient discussion on the talk page, with both sides choosing mostly to revert.
• I warned two users not to revert the addition of sourced material without first using the talk page, and not to re-revert.

  Bidgee (talk · contribs): warning, warning removed, more explicit warning.

  Stepopen (talk · contribs): warning.

As (in my opinion) there was a stark contrast between the standards being set for the new user's edits and the existing standard on the page, I then opened discussion on the other material on that page. See Talk:Political_prisoner#Other_entries_in_the_list.

• Cecilex (talk · contribs) attempts to use the talk page, while also re-adding the material.
• User:Bidgee twice reverts, and does not first use the talk page as warned was a requirement:

  00:32, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403621844 by Cecilex (talk) Per the reasons set out on the talk page about the sources also new sources a opinion pieces and blog)

  00:52, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Other entries in the list)

  00:46, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (Requesting full protection of Political prisoner. (TW))

  00:43, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403623305 by Cecilex (talk) Per prev reason, see talk page. Also do not readd.)

  00:39, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Back to discussion of the sources and inclusion criteria)

Once I've posted this, I'll be blocking User:Bidgee for twenty-four hours to prevent further disruption to the page. I would have preferred a more gentle approach, but he's proven remarkably resistant to clam feedback. I'm not fussy about having my adminstrative actions reversed so anyone with the bit is welcome undo this block, with the caveat that I'd prefer they comment in this thread and wait a few minutes for comments/consensus first. But even if they don't, I'm not going to get my knickers in too much of a twist.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the block yet, I haven't gone through everything in fine detail. But given that no-one else was trying to edit the article in other aspects, would full protection not have been an alternative option? If the aim is to get people on both sides off the article and onto the talk page, full protection could be a more calibrated solution than a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not agree with the way this was handled. I don't understand why this admin opposed the request to protect the page with the rather odd argument that as it was a content dispute we shouldn't protect the page,(what else is full protection for?) [3] and instead chose to block but one edit warrior. Both users edit warred, they should both be blocked, or neither of them should be. Using the talk page at the same time as one is edit warring does not excuse it in any way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• My thoughts: the ideal behaviour would have been for Bidgee to revert once, but not again. But a block isn't necessarily warranted for failing to adhere to ideal behaviour. There are other important factors to bear in mind. First, Bidgee was unquestionably correct: the sources don't support Manning's description as a political prisoner. In fact, Quigley is right to remove many more entries than Manning. Being correct isn't an excuse to edit-war, but it should be a factor in whether a block is an appropriate solution. Secondly, it was the other side that broke the BRD cycle, by insisting on re-inserting contentious material after it had been reverted and while a discussion was taking place. Third, there were better options: full protection would have stopped the edit war and forced everyone onto the talk page. Here, full protection is a viable option because this dispute is the only editing activity happening on the page. Blocking one party means that party can't even continue to engage in discussion on the talk page. Fourth, he hasn't broken 3RR (of course, that's not determinative - edit warring can happen regardless of 3RR - but he hasn't even come close). Accordingly, I'd suggest a lift of the block and a lockdown of the article for about a week. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• WP:BRD applies. The change proposer must get a consensus for his/her change. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblocking. I'm unblocking Bidgee, because (a) this has now been open for well over an hour and the block has been opposed by up to three editors (I take Beeblebrox and, perhaps, GoodDay to be opposed to the one-way block) and supported by none; (b) it's a short block so only a short discussion period for the purposes of unblocking is warranted; and (c) the blocking admin kindly indicated it would be ok for any admin to unblock after a short period for comments. I'll also full-protect the article for a week with the caveat that the unblock is not an endorsement of Bidgee's actions.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that everyone. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Aaron, you seem to have involved yourself in the content on talk beginning December 17, so that would preclude you from using the tools. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I saw Aaron's involvement on the talk page as weighing in, in an administrative capacity, to stop edit-warring, rather than getting involved in the content dispute (although it is fine line and Aaron went further than I would have). That's something admins should be encouraged to do. I've found a few times that a few stern messages on a talk page from an admin who reserves the right to use their tools in the dispute can cool things down before the need to dish out blocks arises.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the involvement was clearly editorial. Aaron hasn't been an active admin for some time, so no one had reason to believe he was there as an admin and not as an editor, always a fine line in the best of cases. Arguing on RfPP against page protection during a content dispute, then blocking the regular editor who requested the protection, but not blocking the occasional editor causing the trouble—while being involved in expressing an opinion about content on talk—these are all the kinds of things best avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman actions as an Administrator are questionable. He is clearly an involved editor, even if he never edited the article, as they are heavily involved in the talk page discussion. Aaron Brenneman also seems to have little understanding of the policies and guidelines in place, as an Administrator they should be able to understand them (doesn't have to know it off by heart).

Aaron Brenneman as an involved editor should not threaten to misuse their tools, I also question the amount of time it took them to block me which was just over one hour and twenty minutes after the undo when it was clear I wasn't going to do another revert (infact I had limited myself to those two undo/reverts) not yet breached the 3RR which is another reason why I had asked for protection. It has me confused as to why he has refused the protection of the article while there is a dispute in progress. He's latest comment on the talk page is also questionable and clearly has failed to assume good faith towards me.

I would have thought that past history he as to deal with would have given him an idea when to block editors. I'm sadly considering at taking this to WP:RFC/ADMIN since he has failed to apologise for the unwarranted block and has continued to act in bad faith (see above link about ABF). I also believe that block should be annotated since no once will ever look at the diff link and will be yet another block that people will try and use against me (and they have in the past). Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman has followed the wrong path. It's good to tell regular editors to not BITE newcomers, but such advice should be tempered when the newcomer is an WP:SPA making a political point by adding Bradley Manning as a political prisoner while citing two sources which merely describe the person as a prisoner (Manning's circumstances are disgraceful, but Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs). See this discussion where Courcelles said "For you to have threatened these users with a block for enforcing BLP standards is quite inexplicable." That was four days before the block under discussion here. Bidgee's first revert ('sources do not state that he is a "political prisoner"') was precisely correct, and Bidgee did not violate WP:3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The court system will decide what laws, if any, this Manning guy broke; wikipedia won't decide it, but only report it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the block was an error; the unilateral block and the refusal to use page protection are at the least out of keeping with current practice. I think, however, this should not be perceived as a threat to misuse his tools...since I highly doubt that he considered it might be misuse, what with his complete opennness about the situation and his recommendation that Bidgee seek feedback from other administrators if he disagreed. (cf. here.) "threat to misuse" carries connotations of intent to knowingly take improper action. The level of involvement here is borderline; the input at the talk page of the article does not seem strictly editorial to me, but it would have been a good idea to make clear that he was speaking in his capacity as an administrator. I've recently discovered that when people don't understand that you're wearing your admin hat, they can view your behavior in quite a different light than it is intended. I don't think there's any abuse of tools, but I'd encourage Aaron to immerse himself a bit more in the current culture of Wikipedia to make sure that his tool use is in line with current policy and practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is not the way I perceived it, they should have sought an opinion as their warning was out of line for an Admin who is involved in the dispute. Why block an hour after I undid the edit on the article when it was clear that I wasn't disrupting Wikipedia or the article and had not reached the 3RR (and just to clarify that I wouldn't had done any further reverts which is why I took the step of requesting protection)? As an Admin on Commons I would have, if involved, gotten a third party Admin and also protect the article as well as warn those involved (if not involved in the dispute) that they will be blocked if they continue after the protection has ended. Being heavy handed like Aaron Brenneman was, is completely out of line. I'll also quote he's comment on the political prisoner talk page "that editor was blocked shortly to stop the disruption, and the discussion was clear that their behaviour was "not ideal."", disruption? how was I disrupting the article at that time (when I was well away from a computer), I'm sorry but I don't feel it was in error with a comment such as that which was well an truly after I was unblocked.

Now I have a block log in which I shouldn't have. It was ok in the early days of Wiki but now it effects anything I do. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add further to my comment, if any one still thinks that the block wasn't misuse of the tools then see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Misuse of administrative tools (RE: Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute). Bidgee (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, since more or less every block in your log was lifted or otherwise noted as not having bearing, I don't think it's much of a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have had the first block used against me, even though it was noted in the block log, on more then one occasion. Bidgee (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A short block like that, which happened almost three years ago, means very little today. That's donkeys' years on a website. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I haven't had the block used against me in the past year (partly due to not being as active on Wiki) but the point is the last one will be, especially those who don't bother to look at the link or plainly just want to use anything such a blocks [of any length (an editor showed me a recent example)]. People also use the block logs in RfA even though you really don't have anything to answer for. Bidgee (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee is quite correct and you are wrong Gwen; many editors just look at the length of a block log, nothing else. Do you recall blocking me for using the word "sycophantic" for instance? That was two entries, one for your stupid block and another for your reluctant unblock. Yet your own record of making similarly poor blocks remains unblemished. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As we both know, Malleus, I didn't block you for using the word "sycophantic." I blocked you for a long and wearisome pattern of incivility. If you would like to talk about your block log further, please start another thread somewhere, or you're welcome to bring it up on my talk page. That said, I do agree with both of you that there sometimes is carelessness in reading block logs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that you and the truth are such strangers. Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Watch it. Drop the stick and back away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you back away? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to our friendly neighborhood administrators, I think this topic and the one from yesterday really invite us to revisit discussions over whether admins who are absent from the project for extended periods should really retain their admin privileges. Wikipedia changes quickly, and if someone is gone from here for nearly 2 years things like this happen. It's not about "punishing" admins, but about competency. I don't think someone who was absent for so long should be exercising their admin tools like this until they've become familiar with current policies and guidelines. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Being a non-admin intrigued to see the behaviour - I am convinced that Burpelson AFB has something there which should be built into policy - absence - specially when it comes to the way things change - even within 6 months - should either require update as to currency of some issues, or even a refresher on some of the intriguing shifts in the procedures and policies that can occur that even regulars seem to miss or misinterpret even. The fact that the rfa process has block logs as a stumbling block (forgive the pun) that in turn falls back on careless admins reflects badly all round SatuSuro 14:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why Commons has that type of policy yet Wikipedia lacks it, see: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. Normally Commons lacks the policies which Wikipedia already has but not in this case. Bidgee (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) De-adminship has been proposed here a number of times but it always ends up as a huge dramafest/shouting match with no consensus because many people characterize it as unfairly punishing admins (which is really a red herring, but I digress). I suspect it's unpopular with some folks the same way term limits are unpopular with some politicians. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Closer to Motion of no confidence, which can be used as a political tool to tie up important decisions while other things are going on. That's where most of the resistance comes from, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But what's being referred to here isn't a general de-adminning policy or procedure, but something to deal with a specific situation: when an admin doesn't edit for X amount of time, they lose the bit. That part of it could be semi-automatic, and there obviously wouldn't be any ongoing conflict at the time, because the admin isn't editing. The question of regaining the bit is a little trickier, but not much. Requiring another RfA seems unnecessary and unfair, something on the order of getting the bit back after Y amount of edits over Z amount of time might be sufficient to ensure that the editor is aware of any changes in Wikiculture in the meantime. It could all be cut-and-dried. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the Commons policy is nothing at all like a motion of no confidence. The criteria are entirely objective. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the Commons policy, it seems very fair for all while still expecting admins to retain a certain level of current experience. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the Commons policy put in use and it works well nor is it strict. A small number of Admins do return after being emailed that they are have a few weeks to do more then five sysop actions and do become regulars again, the others that have their sysops removed never return or when they do have no issues getting the sysops back. Aaron Brenneman's lack of comments or apology is leaving me with no other opinion but to list a RfC, as any other Admin I've dealt with has always kept commenting with the AN/I discussion. Bidgee (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As a general matter, it seems to me that if an administrator is unsure enough about whether to block that he or she decides to open an ANI thread discussing the block, then unless the situation is an emergency, the discussion should usually come before the block rather than afterwards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my thoughts as well (as an Commons Admin) and I have seen a lots of discussions before on AN/I blocks are put in place but I have also seen a small amount of blocks put in place before the discussion (like in this case), though I do have to give those Admin's credit as they admitted fault, apologised and dealt with the consequences, however in this case none of that has happened. Bidgee (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, that's a lot of responses.

• @Newyorkbrad - That's quite a high bar you're proposing. General discussion on ANI does not require that I'm "unsure" but simply that I recognise that there is a possibility of tenable debate. The blocked editor had also already brought the matter to this page, but it had not recieved much attention. I was being courteous.
• @Bidgee
  1. Your suggestion that a request for comment based upon me not "ke[eping] commenting" is histrionic. I commented here last on 22 December 2010 at 05:54 and within half an hour I was done editting for the evening.
  2. I'm open to recall. I see that (since the category move) it's not obvious from the history, but I created recall.
  3. I'm a bit confused why you've linked my block log while at the same time you decry the use of someone's block history against them?
• @Moonriddengirl
  1. The use of the phrase "unilateral block" is an unfortunate obloquy. What percentage of blocks are anything other than unilateral?
  2. I'm not sure how I "refused" to use page protection. No one asked me to protect the page, and while my input into the request for page protection was marred by not being explicit in that the requesting editor was involved in the content dispute, the current wording at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes says "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed with blocks or bans, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others."
• @Johnuniq
  1. I have not even suggested anyone violated the three revert rule.
  2. The very new editors' sourcing was much better than almost anything else on the page. On at least one occasion the sources they provided did explicitly say there was a claim he was a political prisoner.
• @SlimVirgin - I am simply stunned to see it suggested that I'm involved. From Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'."

I've looked again over each of the edits, and other than failing to say "I'm an admin" I'm still quite confortable with each step I took:

• My initial comments where I ask for editors to improve their editting
  1. are consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit summaries in that "Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits"
  2. and is also consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Source citations in that "Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate."
• My second set of edits where I explicitly state that the edit warring must stop
  1. is consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit wars/three-revert rule in that "In cases of edit-warring, revert limitations are applied in which reverting is restricted and violators can be blocked for specified periods,"
  2. as is my third set of edits where I issue a general editting restriction.

Penultimately

• Given the state of the other references on the page and the generally poor level of discourse that was occuring, how were the newer editors expected to learn community norms?
• They were making serious attempts to comply, and as far as they could tell edit warring was what you do.

Finally, and with respect to the block itself

• I had issued a warning that was consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Civility.2Fdisruption.2Freasonableness in that "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement."
• Without substantive discussion with me regarding this warning, the warned editor violated both of the editting restrictions he had been placed under.

While I've certainly taken on board the feedback presented in this section, forgive me if I state that several of the positions expressed are inconsistant; poorly informed; and at odds with the facts of this event as well as policies and guidelines as they exist.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron, I do not use the term unilateral in the sense of done by one person, but in the sense that it affected only one party in the content dispute. I'm quite taken aback that you regard that as abusive. So far as I know, it's not an uncommon definition. In terms of your refusal to use protection, is that not what you meant to do when you wrote there, "This is a content dispute, and there is no requirement for full protection."? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all Admin's keep tabs with a discussion in which they have been involved in and you have been on elsewhere but not here.

Also you have failed to explain your bad faith comment towards me.

Also you can not place what ever restrictions you want on others who you don't agree with and the fact that you were already heavily involved.

I wasn't using the block log against you just pointing out that in the past you also had unfair blocks but mealy pointing out that I thought that you would have taken into account past experiences. Fact is I'm rather appalled with your handling of this whole fiasco and the fact your not even sorry for it, I feel that you should recall yourself considering the feeling from other Admins here have been the same. Bidgee (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl - Thank you for that clarification with respect to "unilateral." And with respect to the protection, I argued against the protection (poorly, it has been noted and I've acknowledged) but I didn't refuse to do it. The use of the active tense seems to place greater onus on me than I believe is warrented. If I'm drawing more out of that than you intended, I apologise.

@Bidgee - Thank you for clarifying that. I simply didn't understand for what purpose you were bringing up the log. And I was keeping tabs, but I was mostly asleep or at work while this was going on. And² in case it's not utterly pellucid: I'm not at all sorry. I want polite collegial editting of the page;I want consistant, robust sourcing. I tried on several occasions to engage you in polite discussion, and I failed in that. And³ adminstrators can place editting restrictions as they see fit. Have you read any of the numerous links to Arbitration principles that I have provided?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you fail to see you abuse of tools and are not sorry for your incorrect blocking, then I feel that you are no longer fit to be an Admin. Fact is no Admin who is involved in a dispute should ever place restrictions considering they were bias to one side (Your block is proof of that), Admins who are not part of the dispute can place restrictions. Bidgee (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop dramamongering. If you have an issue with Aaron's actions, either file a RFC/U or submit a request for recall. There is nothing more to be done here. NW (Talk) 05:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So I can't make a reply to something Aaron Brenneman has said? Fact is I was giving them time to respond before taking it further. Pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. Bidgee (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:209.221.34.4 & User:208.101.233.54 are both generating massive amounts of edits on the same general-interest articles while similarly disregarding certain accepted Wikipedia editing practices.
User:209.221.34.4 (Special:Contributions/209.221.34.4) deleted content, deleted certain sources, is not using edit summaries and seems to be writing WP:OR while not utilizing the Preview button (and therefore generates massive lines of edits that could be taken care of with much fewer edits). After I left some Notices and Warnings about these practices at User talk:209.221.34.4, the second IP-editor, User:208.101.233.54 (Special:Contributions/208.101.233.54), started editing the same or similar articles in a similar fashion: also no edit summaries, also doesn't use Preview button (so ends up making multiple lines of edits), also writing WP:OR on the same general-interest articles ("blonde bombshell" movie-stars/B-movie stars such as Jayne Mansfield, Kim Novak, Sheree North, Marilyn Monroe, Cleo Moore and others). I have tried to assume good faith and notify these IP-editors of accepted Wikipedia practices/guidelines and have been correcting obvious errors as I find them but the massive lines of edits are proving too much for me to keep up with. I have been finding that some of their text additions are, in my opinion, veering into unsourced original research, such as the following:
209.221.34.4 Jayne Mansfield diff & 209.221.34.4 Kim Novak diff.
208.101.233.54 Jayne Mansfield diff & 208.101.233.54 Kim Novak diff.
Another consideration is that at least two of the articles' subjects, Kim Novak and Mamie Van Doren, are still living and therefore the articles are biographies of living people. I would appreciate some other opinions on the two IP-editors and the general situation. Shearonink (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have only looked at the Mansfield edits that you gave above, but it seems that (even though xe isn't telling you xyr sources, communicating with you at all, or even using edit summaries) the editor without an account there is working from one of the many books that document Mansfield's career in more detail than our article did before that edit. ISBN 9781561711468 records, for example, that Mansfield's first rôle was opposite Edward G. Robinson in Illegal (released 1955), and goes on to record further rôles in Hell on Frisco Bay and Pete Kelley's Blues. It even gives her initial salary. The entry for Mansfield in the St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture documents those, too. The "low budget German thriller" Dog eat Dog!, with its German, Italian, and original English titles, and indeed a note about the poor dubbing, is documented with reference to Mansfield in ISBN 9780313285448. Yes, it would be great if the editor cited xyr sources, used edit summaries, and communicated. But from the Mansfield edits at least it doesn't appear that what is being added is either intentionally wrong or a new analysis not to be found in the several existing detailed biographies, in books, of this person. Your best course of action here is to consider the edits being made as prompts for things that the article hasn't yet covered in detail, and to take some of these books in hand and improve the article's coverage of the subject. Replace the mediocre content that is pointing you in the right direction with good, solidly sourced, content.

  Oh and fix the bogus book citations that are citing Amazon.com as if it were the source in Jayne Mansfield#References, will you? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Addendum: Kim Novak's bad performances in Middle of the Night and others are discussed in Barnett2007 that's already cited in the article. Indeed Barnett xyrself cites Shipman1973, with a particularly scathing quotation ("a performance of such inadequacy that it soon became legendary") from Shipman. Again, an editor without an account is making what is still a fairly poor article better, but simply not telling you the sources, using edit summaries, using the preview button, or communicating. Take it as a prompt, take the already cited sources in hand, and improve the article further — attributing to Shipman that which is Shipman's, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Valid edits or not, it is the IP's job to cite the sources he or she is using. If they don't know how, they can go to the talk page and request assistant. —Mike Allen 11:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Logger9 has the habit of writing long, unencyclopedic essays, compiled from outdated research literature, which has led to long, infertile debates in the past. Recently it has been discovered that much of his writing consists just of copying or superficially reformulating entire paragraphs. He has been warned several times about copyright violations, but he continues as before. For more information, please see my recent note Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Logger9 -- Marie Poise (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you creating an LTA page is constructive at this point, those are usually only created for the most egregious of disruptive editors who are also blocked/banned. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel increasingly lost in WP's ever increasing bureaucracy. Anyway, I am sure this user will be banned soon. -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for WP:CCI which can set up a systematic review of all of their contributions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the LTA page and opened a CCI request. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues are confirmed, and the CCI is open Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Logger9 is continuing the edit war at physics of glass. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot review the entirety of the PDF, but a few glimpses in Google convinces me that the content he added back to the article is still a violation of our copyright policy.

Some of this is paraphrased; some is verbatim. As per his comments at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9, he may not understand what is required by paraphrasing. See that page (in background) for a few examples of content he seems to have copied. If he continues placing content onto Wikipedia copied or minimally paraphrased from external sources, I believe he will need to be indefinitely blocked until we have some assurance that he both understands the degree of rewriting required and is prepared to meet it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Logger9 has continued his copyright violations, after the above comment was written ([11], subsequently removed as a copyvio [12].) If no action is taken here, then he may construe statements that he will be blocked for further copyright violations as idle threats. Since he's already been blocked once for copyright violations, I suggest that the next block be much longer. Chester Markel (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked. I don't believe he should be unblocked without some assurance that he knows how to handle content and will abide by our policies. His note here that "I do not copy content directly: I paraphrase" in the face of so much direct pasting is hard to comprehend. (See his talk page for one example, and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9 for more.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

User:Someone65 was called out by several users for performing mass page moves without discussion in the Islam portal last week. User was then banned for a week for sockpuppetry. User returned a couple of days ago and began a campaign to get articles deleted on the Islam portal. When I opposed user S65, we got into a skirmish on the subject, after which S65 went through my edit history and picked out an article I added content to over the weekend.

S65 reverted my changes, claiming they were "unreferenced". As you can see, the change he reverted consists primarily of sourced content, and a photo gallery.

This user is exhibiting a pattern of destructive behavior. The reversion cited above is an act of vandalism committed solely in retribution for our disagreement on a different issue.

Do you have any suggestions as to what can be done to curb the destructive behavior of this user? User is currently requesting rollback authority, citing his efforts to fight vandalism, which sounds frightening.

Thanks

Aquib (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This ANI report is absolutely absurd.

Firstly, User:Aquib is untruthful about my page moves (which happened 16 days ago) . I DID discuss the page moves with consent from 3 other established editors. (see [13] for evidence)

Secondly, I reverted this edit [14] by User:Aquib because he;

1. added an entire paragraph without adding a single citation
2. he deleted a reliable and secondary reference from the University of Pennsylvania, which was perfectly referenced.
3. i considered his pointless addition of an image gallery as totally unecessary and against Wikipedia:Image use policy

Thirdly, i have not began a "deletion campaign". I'm simply objecting to the creation of misinformitive pages by User:Imadjafar over the past 2 days. (check his User talk:Imadjafar). Two administrators involved have not objected whatsoever to my edits.

What concerns me is the fact that User:Aquib has stalked me over my last 7 edits. Someone65 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

S65's responses are a total distortion, as can be proved by the timestamps on the conversations and the diff on the revert I am complaining about in this ANI. Further, it is part of a growing pattern of tendentious editing and misrepresentations. This editor needs to be banned or prevented from damaging articles.

------

To respond to Someone65s first point:

Firstly, User:Aquib is untruthful about my page moves (which happened 16 days ago) . I DID discuss the page moves with consent from 3 other established editors. (see [82] for evidence)

• The link Someone65 has provided here is to a discussion that I initiated after the page moves had been executed, and after my initial discussion discussion asking him why he had executed the moves, not before. The initial conversation I had with him was here where I asked him why he had moved the pages. As you can see, S65's response is that the move was done under the umbrella of the Jagged85 RFC. It is only when I went to the Jagged85 RFC page to follow up on S65's claim this conversation S65 claims is a pre-move discussion occurs, I learn S65 is not involved in the Jagged85, and is misrepresenting the page moves as being part of the RFC. In fact, as evidenced by the discussions, other editors are upset about the moves as they have occurred without discussion. So S65's first point is an obvious distortion, as was the misrepresentation of the reason for the move. Frankly I am surprised at these claims, as anyone can look through S65's edit history and see the page moves began before my first contact.

To respond to Someone65s second point:

Secondly, I reverted this edit [15] by User:Aquib because he;

1. added an entire paragraph without adding a single citation
2. he deleted a reliable and secondary reference from the University of Pennsylvania, which was perfectly referenced.
3. i considered his pointless addition of an image gallery as totally unecessary and against Wikipedia:Image use policy

• An examination of the diff I have provided shows in fact S65 has reverted the information I have inserted about the gardens at Azhar park, and included a reference to D. Fairchild Ruggles' book on Islamic Gardening. I may have also cleaned up some uncited text, but my new section on the gardens is what was removed along with its citation. So S65's second point is another obvious distortion, as was the first, the claims about the move etc.
• In fact, the diff shows the citation was mine, and S65 deleted it. Point-blank Distortion.
• S65 considered the addition of a few photos a violation of policy? I'm not sure how to respond to that. Consistent, perhaps?

Rather than S65s account of the "move incident" which I have demonstrated as a misrepresentation, and the supposed reasons for his the reversion of my al-Azhar edits from this weekend, which I have refuted, I can offer a much simpler, obvious truth. As evidenced from the timing of the al-Azhar park edit on 12/22/2010, I was involved with him in a dispute (which he is continuing to pursue as I type) regarding the notability of biblical figures in Islam. When I began to revert some of the edits S65 was making against another editor's work, he swung around and attacked the al-Azhar article I worked on over the weekend, then tried to explain it by claiming it was I who damaged the article.

To respond to S65s third assertion

Thirdly, i have not began a "deletion campaign". I'm simply objecting to the creation of misinformitive pages by User:Imadjafar over the past 2 days. (check his User talk:Imadjafar). Two administrators involved have not objected whatsoever to my edits.

• The references to biblical figures in Islam is neither a small matter nor a new one. S65's objections to them are simply part of a pattern of tendentious editing and misrepresentations, much as the defense of S65s actions have been misrepresented here.

On S65's last remark

What concerns me is the fact that User:Aquib has stalked me over my last 7 edits.

• If I am not supposed to be concerned when I come across an editor who behaves the way S65 is behaving, I am open to suggestions as to what I should do.

To recap

Virtually every point S65 made in response to this ANI is a distortion or a misrepresentation. It is almost as if S65 thinks no one will bother to check the statements for truth. This is the same pattern S65 exhibits in editing articles: Misrepresentations, distortions and a tendency to suppress information. This editor needs to be banned or prevented from damaging articles.

Aquib (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

-----

Almost forgot to recap the main point: S65 clearly retaliated against me by reverting sourced changes to an article I edited over the weekend. This was done in response to an ongoing, totally unrelated dispute we are currently engaged in. Deliberate vandalism.

Aquib (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time -Aquib (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the project would be improved by the indefinite removal of Someone65 for the following reasons:

1. Previous abusive sockpuppetry noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi/Archive.
2. Reverting an edit for the supposed reason that it "Did not provide references" [16], while actually removing the reliable source {{Cite book|last=Ruggles|first=D. Fairchild|title=Islamic Gardens and Landscapes|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|date=2008|page=168|isbn=0812240251}} is blatantly malicious activity, suggestive of sneaky vandalism. Someone65's repetition of his lies about this edit here [17], pretending that he restored the reference which he actually removed, provides further evidence of Someone65's mendacious conduct.

There's probably more evidence of duplicity by Someone65, but I really shouldn't have to look. When an editor has been caught betraying the community's default assumption of good faith by abusing multiple accounts, lying in edit summaries to damage articles, then brazenly lying again to justify their vandalism, thus requiring good-faith contributors to review all of their edits for potential sneaky vandalism or misrepresentation, the only appropriate response is to eject the malicious editor from the project. Chester Markel (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's a need for a community ban at this time, but I have blocked Someone65 indefinitely, because their recent editing is just too disruptive/weird. If Someone65 can make a persuasive case for unblocking, no further discussion with me is required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sarek, but considering a history of abusive socking and the fact that the main account has been indeffed since November, I think this sock should remain blocked and future socks should also be blocked until this editor understands how to work with other people and stops the sneaky vandalism and meatpupptery campaigns. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For several weeks, a variety of anon IPs in Ryiadh, Saudi Arabia have been trying to remove material from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. They tend to display the singular coincidence of also editing articles related to Wikileaks:

77.31.5.157 SAUDI ARABIA AR RIYAD RIYADH. Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak, United States diplomatic cables leak. Contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.31.5.157

94.99.114.21 RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.99.114.21