Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826

Ronreisman

Huldra has been attacked by User:Ronreisman (with some clues about a potential export or tag team) on his talk page: after she warned him to take care with WP:1RR. Ronreisman :

• "given the infamous reputation y'all have on the internet."
• "I'll take this as confirmation that y'all do, in fact, work together to suppress and distort facts in the service of propagandistic POV."
• "You sound like a spider, daring a fly to enter a trap. Thanks for the invitation."

I add he had already been informed very kindly about WP:1RR : here and that I was myself attacked the same way by him 4 weeks ago:

• "@Pluto2012 : You disruptively reverted my edit because you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles by improperly suppressing relevant and well-sourced information in order to promote your own partisan goals."

I complained of this to him (next edit :) "And you insulted me strongly, violating WP:AGF." but he considered himself as acting right:

• (edit summary) : "Dishonorable and dishonest action breeds disrespect.")

He went on (with Ykantor ) so I just left it and removed the article from my Watchlist.

There are other examples of misconduct in his edit summaries (in interactions with Hudra, Nishidani and I):

• Please stop POV-pushing, OR, propaganda on Wikipedia,
• Nish is also misrepresenting the refs;
• so that he is not misrepresented by misleading wording by a Wikipedia editor;
• Untrue info was introduced;
• Now, please stop the anti-Zionist POV-pushing, and please stop vandalizing the article;
• Request to Pluto2012 to stop violating WP:AGF and WP:RS, and to cease pov-Pushing that is detrimental to the articles veracity and quality.;
• (...) propaganda when it actually praised the book's veracity;
• Reply to Huldra's misrepresentation of a referenced source (...) and discusses politically-motivated *untrue* accusations against this source;
• ...

Ronreisman doens't seem to understand that his behaviour is not acceptable and he doesn't mind about WP:AGF and WP:NPA and if he is not strongly warned to stop, there is no reason why he would do so as proven in his recent interaction with Huldra.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification to Ronreisman. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

While is somewhat confrontational, I don't see problems in all those diffs you provide alleging misconduct in edit summaries. I suggest you try WP:AGF yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean he is "Good Faith" when he performs these "Personal Attacks" and you claim that "Now, please stop the anti-Zionist POV-pushing, and please stop vandalizing the article" or "you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia" or "You sound like a spider, daring a fly to enter a trap" to someone after he made WP:1RR is in compliance with the 4st pillar of wikipedia.

Could you argue how I should "try WP:AGF myself" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I read through a bunch of the cited edits, and Ron's edits look reasonable to me. Greg (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In general the controversy seems to be about one side that wants information deleted, and another side that wants information added. Since the added information is reliably sourced, and nobody has demonstrated that it is a tiny minority's viewpoint by citing a plethora of other sources, there seems to be no good reason to delete it or to threaten to delete it.

I have read all of the edits listed above. The article edits themselves look fine to me.

I did not understand why User:Pluto2012 and User:Huldra claim that User:Ronreisman has to follow WP:1RR. WP:3RR is the default rule throughout Wikipedia. WP:1RR only applies in particular circumstances that seem to be absent here. They offer no justification, neither here, nor on Ronreisman's talk page, of why Ronreisman should have to follow WP:1RR. However, it turns out that WP:1RR DOES apply to all pages concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is not obvious from the simple link to WP:1RR posted on Ronreisman's talk page. Instead you have to follow that link, then click on the fourth link in that paragraph (to Wikipedia:General sanctions) and then search that long, long page. You won't find anything about Fawzi al-Qawuqji or Haj Amin al-Husseini there, but if you search there for "Arab", "Palestine" or "Israel" you will eventually find a summary (that does NOT mention 1RR). But! If you then click on the "full text" link there, it leads you to a paragraph of text in strikeout font, which seems to be some 2008 sanctions that are no longer in effect. That text is followed by a link to alternate sanctions that still doesn't mention any 1RR rule for pages like this. But if one scrolls down three more sections in that page, finally, under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Further_remedies "Further remedies / General 1RR restriction" there is, finally, a mention of a 1RR rule:

All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

It is not clear that that rule is actually in effect, because that paragraph ends with "Suppressed on 18:44, March 10 2012 (UTC)". It appears that the suppression only refers to PART of the 1RR rules, but even that is not clear. I hope that some editor or administrator who knows how to clean up that page can revise it to make it 100% clear what the current rules are.

Given all of the above, it can hardly be said that User:Ronreisman was warned of the WP:1RR rule about these two pages. It took me most of an hour of research to even believe that 1RR applied! To clarify for him and others, I have today added the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement template to the talk pages of both of the relevant articles. This template directly states that 1RR applies, and links to the policy discussion in which that policy was decided upon.

There also seems to be a "sudden death" rule in effect throughout Arab-Israeli articles. It allows any "uninvolved" administrator to sanction any editor who violates any rule of Wikipedia, or even the purpose of Wikipedia, after the editor has been warned and counseled. This applies to the editors on both sides of this issue:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Regarding WP:NPA, I do see that in some of the listed edit summaries, Ronreisman wrote about people rather than content or actions. For example Request to Pluto2012 to stop violating WP:AGF and WP:RS, and to cease pov-Pushing that is detrimental to the articles veracity and quality. But in other summaries, he correctly referred to content or actions, such as Untrue info was introduced or Now, please stop the anti-Zionist POV-pushing, and please stop vandalizing the article. Saying that an edit is "POV-pushing" criticizes the action, not the person, and is not WP:NPA. However, it would be kinder if Ronreisman had said, for example, Improve misleading wording about XXX or Try for NPOV on topic YYY by including material about side ZZZ.

In summary, the listed edits by User:Ronreisman in Haj Amin al-Husseini and Fawzi al-Qawuqji are largely reasonable and well-sourced contributions to controversial topics. He tended to provide new information on the topic in talk page discussions. Ronreisman should pay careful attention to describe his edits in a constructive way, even when frustrated.

Gnuish (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If 1RR was the issue, he would have been reported at WP:AE and not here. Zero^talk 11:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Pluto2012

User:Pluto2012, on the other hand, wrote things in talk pages like Until we can find confirmation that what L&C states, I will remove this from the article, and either deleted well-sourced statements, or threatened to delete them. It is not appropriate to delete someone else's contributed text from an article "until we can find confirmation", unless it is negative material in a biography of a living person. The people that these pages describe died in the 1970s.

Pluto2012 also claimed that

This is primary source and it cannot be used if not supported by a secondary reliable source. That's well known and basic rule. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Pluto2012 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: This is misleading. wp:rs:"While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.". Ykantor (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I will delete this if I don't find any secondary source or if none is provided. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012 is wrong and Ykantor is right. Pluto2012 should not be deleting, or threatening to delete, other editors' contributions that come from primary sources "if I don't find a secondary source or if none is provided". What WP:RS actually says is:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Pluto2012 also claimed that another policy applied when it clearly did not: this claim that when inserted information doesn't describe every point of view on a topic, the right answer is to delete it under WP:UNDUE rather than to insert additional well-sourced information to put the original information into better context: :

Another point is that dropping a quote without contextualizing this is not acceptable because it doesn't comply with the first pillar : we write an encyclopaedia. Pure quotes are for "wikiquote". In an encyclopaedia, the context is what is around this quote and why historians think it's worth mentionning it. And of course, the contributor who would add this has to add all the points of views from all wp:rs here regarding this context

It is completely legitimate to add a single quote to an article, if that is all that one has at hand or all that one has time to add today. Others who have other quotes with other points of view should add those too, rather than deleting the first quote. Wikipedia is not written by historians or encyclopedists; it is written by ordinary people who are individual editors in a collaborative process. Pluto2012 also made several false and tendentious statements about Ronreisman. For example, immediately above this edit, cited above by Pluto2012 as the sixth "other examples of misconduct", Pluto2012 said

You put back the "Nazi allegence" tag whereas you faild to provide the battles to which al-Qawuqji participated for Germany. You had promised to do so.

Ronreisman had never promised to do so, nor was he required to do so. The whole issue was made-up by Pluto2012 inventing another illegitimate rule claiming that an infobox can't include a flag indicating military service under a country unless the proponent can state what battles the subject fought in. Many people who served in the military never fought in any battles; battles are irrelevant to military service. Ronreisman's alleged misconduct in this citation was that he defended himself in the talk page against Pluto2012's false statements about nonexistent rules.

User:Pluto2012 should pay careful attention to the purpose of Wikipedia, seeking to add article text to describe areas of conflicts more fully, rather than inventing fanciful rules and applying them to other editors. Pluto2012 should not delete article text that he sees as one-sided or primary source material.

Gnuish (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to expect good sources for contentious claims. In an area like I/P not doing so would be disastrous. You also missed the point. It was never about whether he fought in any battles but whether he served in the military at all. He didn't. (And congratulations for finding a way to shout in 24pt type.) - Zero^talk 11:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC

Zero0000 : This is not a reference to our recent discussion about Haj Amin al-Husseini's WWII military affiliation with the Waffen SS. Gnuish is referring to Pluto2012's claim that "you faild to provide the battles to which al-Qawuqji participated for Germany. You had promised to do so." This refers to Fawzi al-Qawuqji's military service, including his commission as a colonel in the Wehrmacht (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzi_al-Qawuqji#German_Military_Service ). Pluto2012 and Huldra repeatedly objected to mentioning Qawuqji's allegiance to Nazi Germany in the article. They objected to a series of high quality RS, apparently in an continuing attempt to keep relevant information out of the article. The nit that attracted gnuish's attention was Pluto2012's contention that the definition of 'military allegiance' required a list of battles cited from certain secondary sources (and *not* in memoirs, nor in US Government Historical Documents, etc.). Gnuish (and I) take objection to Pluto2012 falsely claiming I agreed with his contention, despite several responses that made it clear that 'battles' were not a requirement for honorable military service. Pluto rejected a series of RS that substantiated Qawuqji's services to Germany, in some cases using false claims that these RS had been castigated by other RS. In each case these claims turned out to be either untrue or Original Research (eg an Israeli historian told Pluto2012 that a well-regarded volume was unreliable; Pluto then used this hearsay as justification for rejecting all references to the volume). At one point Pluto2012 added a good scholarly reference (one of the few constructive edits he's contributed to this article) that was thoughtfully sympathetic to Qawuqji. The author explicitly stated that she would not comment on Qawuqji's WWII record, and cited a Journal article by German historian Gerhard Höpp as a good source on this subject. Pluto2012, however, argued that even Dr. Höpp's peer-reviewed article was not acceptable RS, since he characterized it as a 'primary source.' When the weight of multiple RS made it clear that Qawuqji's German military affiliations were undeniable, Pluto2012 made impolite statements and then tarred the entire article with a drive-by 'Disputed' banner, apparently in an effort to cast doubt on the the well-documented facts in the article.Ronreisman (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that I misread Gnuish's words; apologies for that. I won't comment on the content since I didn't examine the sources and anyway content disputes are not supposed to be discussed on this page. Zero^talk 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources "sympathic" and "unsympathic" to anybody.

Each topic has a list of WP:RS sources and wikipedia editors have to report all of them fairly in providing the due weight to each of them.

Ronreisman and Ykantor just decided to report only some of them and that's the only problem.

Now, as proven by the intervention of Gnuish who had not edited wikipedia for 1 month there is a collaboration to act as a team and they just insult and attack those who disagree.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Zero: yours:"It is perfectly reasonable to expect good sources for contentious claims. In an area like I/P not doing so would be disastrous.". Do you mean that Wikipedia rules should be ignored? the wp:rs states: wp:rs:"While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." . So is Pluto right to ignore this rule? Ykantor (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I said and have no idea why you think you have replied to it. Zero^talk 08:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it sustainable to ignore Wikipedia rules and to adapt other other unwritten (to my knowledge) rules? Is it acceptable that editors are required to behave according to unpublished rules? Ykantor (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Defame. Defame. There will always remain something."

When you write "behave according to unpublished rules?", you mean that you disagree that each of us has to report all (reliable) points of view on a matter but instead you claim that you can just chose those you want to report. Well, no Ykantor, to comply with WP:NPoV, you have to report all of these, even those you disagree with: both those who are pro- and contra- any thesis or analysis. On Adolf Hitler, on the 1948 War, on Amin al-Husseini, on all articles. But this is particularly true in articles that are controversial and delicate. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Huldra

User:Huldra also cites a Wikipedia rule that does not apply,

In: "Morris; 1948", al-Qawuqji is mentioned on pages 61, 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348. Of all those pages, "someone" has seen fit to quote (in extenso) p. 61, and only p. 61. Why? ... There is one word for this, and that is "cherry-picking". (Or WP:UNDUE, do be more wikipedia formalistic).

In order to insert a quote from a reputable source, an editor does not need to justify why they did not insert every other possible quote from that source, under penalty of having the quote deleted. If there are a majority of reputable sources that disagree with a quote, then someone who thinks it is "cherry-picked" like Huldra should insert balancing material (from the same or additional cited sources), rather than arguing for the deletion of material inserted by others.

Huldra also deleted 1800 bytes of relevant, reliably sourced material in this edit, with the summary saying only "undo propaganda; see talk". Calling someone else's edits "propaganda" is not showing WP:AGF, nor is reverting them appropriate. Even if someone, somewhere called a cited source "propaganda", and even if you personally think it is propaganda, it does not mean that it IS propaganda. And even if it was "propaganda", edits that cite that source are not a category of information that is subject to immediate deletion from Wikipedia. Propaganda reveals one side of an issue; instead of deleting, add other sides to the discussion. In addition, it came out later in the discussion in the talk page that the single blog source that referred to the Mallman book as being called propaganda went on to defend it against that charge, arguing that it only seemed that way because the publisher had changed the title to make the book more provocative-looking. Ronreisman dug up the context and posted the whole paragraph. It turned out that Huldra herself had "cherry-picked" the propaganda accusation out of context and in a way that tended to mislead any reader who didn't follow the link to the actual source.

User:Huldra should pay careful attention to the purpose of Wikipedia, seeking to add article text to describe areas of conflict more fully, rather than deleting text that she sees as one-sided.

Gnuish (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice how you elided the part of Huldra's comment where she explained it in detail. Zero^talk 11:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor

This description:"You disruptively reverted my edit because you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles by improperly suppressing relevant and well-sourced information in order to promote your own partisan goals" is accurate but, in my opinion it is too mild. As presented in a previous wp:ae, user:Pluto2012 is cheating and lying too, in order to delete other editors contributions and to force his view. Ykantor (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If again no action is taken against Ykantor for this provocation and attack, he will feel free to go on again and again. So what ?

Anyway, the case of Ykantor is different. He is a particularly problematic contributor who refuses to make his behaviour evoluate and who has no collaborative spirit. He is just "right" and the remaining of the world is "wrong":

• see the "famous" WP:A/E that he launched and where it would be presented that "I am cheating and lying" too.
• his behaviour at the end of a km-long discussion he launched at the article Adolf Hitler. And still today he refuses the consensus (he is alone against the 5 contributors who have been editing this article for years) and despite this go on to edit the talk-page again and again.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand what is a personal attack. Saying e.g. "Pluto is a lair" is a personal attack, but stating that you are cheating and lying is a fact, backed by a list of such events.

* You mention the Hitler talk page. Looking at the opposing parties there , you may learn how to behave yourself. None of them is lying or cheating or attack personally.

*Concerning Arab Israeli conflict articles, you repeatedly delete a well supported text and images, because it is not to your anti Israeli taste, although the NPOV rule states that you should not delete it but rather add a supported opposing view (provided there is one) Ykantor (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

See also this Dilbert cartoon, which expands on the importance of criticising the behaviour, not the person (comment on content, not on contributors). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge: there is of course a difference between criticising the behaviour and the person but in the current case, these are the persons who are criticized and not (alleged) behaviours.

When Huldra warns Ronreisman of 1RR and when you see what Ronreisman answers, there is a problem. When you see that a Ykantor dares to writes "you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles". If this is not personal attacks then there is no more personnal attacks.

A personal attack is not just a childish insult.

@Ykantor: you go on with personal attacks. That is not acceptable. And yourself should see that all contributors critisized your behaviour, asked you to stop and some even invited you to read some of my comments.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish I would be able to write such a nice and accurate English:"you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing Wikipedia articles", but unfortunately it is a quote only. I wonder if you can guess who is the source? Ykantor (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dilbert is great, as always. However there is a difference. The chief there says:"You are terrific, but..." while I am not saying that. Moreover thanks God, I am not his chief.

* In your user page, you refer to the "Pcount" excellent tool . How does it count? are minor or major edits considered the same? Is there a tool that count article text deletions only ? (i.e. negative contribution? I would like to use such a tool to check Pluto's contributions. He is unique since it seems that his main article space activity is deleting other editors contributions.

Your user page states: " ...occasionally venture into more contentious areas.". I will appreciate it if you have a look at 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I have listed some problems here- Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#the article has POV and .22dubious.22 problems, and the major problems cannot be dealt with, because of Pluto's repeated deletions of a well supported text. Ykantor (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If your accusations were true, your proposals about the article about the '48 war would have received positive answers from other contributors. On the contrary, you received negative answers and more on your side, you didn't consider worth participating to any of these discussions.

The problem is that you are WP:NOTHERE to contribute in respect of wikipedia rules as proven by the fact you just refuse to agree complying to WP:NPoV in reporting all Pov's on the difficult issues of the I-P conflict : .

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto's incivility (again, sigh). Why must you show your incivility by dragging my reply to another location?

I followed the rule: If you are responding to someone else's remarks, put your comment below theirs and placed my reply to Demiurge1000 in the proper place. I will appreciate it if you drag it back to the initial and right location. Ykantor (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto re-use his smoke screen tactics, writing all sort of vague accusations, in order to cover his proven and repeated cheating, lying , deleting of a well sourced text because it is not to his anti Israeli taste. Ykantor (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

More evidence of Pluto2012 refusing to engage in discussion and that he instead attempts to exploit rules and force his view on others without debate can be found on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dieudonn%C3%A9_M%27bala_M%27bala#Sketch_of_2003_which_launched_much_of_the_controversy

Note his incredibly patronizing demands of me which he uses to revert all of my corrections and additions without discussion. Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor who writes : "Pluto re-use his smoke screen tactics, writing all sort of vague accusations, in order to cover his proven and repeated cheating, lying , deleting of a well sourced text because it is not to his anti Israeli taste. Ykantor"

What smoke ? What cover ?

You complained this article was pov-ed. And you simply didn't participate to the talk page but anyway: your (numerous) comments were rejected by user:Zero0000, user:Nishidani, User:ZScarpia or I. Nobody supported you except me once. 1 constructive comment out of 20...

This was the case on 1948 Arab-Israeli War (on which I am very active) because I know the topic (File:1948 Library.jpg) and on Adolf Hitler (on which I am not really active and on which you was asked by all (5) contributors (who know the topic) to WP:DROPTHESTICK... But just reject the idea.)

This discussion is useless. Admnistrators decided not to intervene, which I deeply regret.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

break

In the above section it is incorrectly asserted that I disagree with the assessment that "it's deliberate gaming for attention from an indef blocked user." In fact, I neither agree nor disagree with that assessment; I actually just don't care. All that really matters is mainspace. All this "stuff" behind the Wikipedia:: prefix is supposed to be about keeping that going smoothly. Editors who chose to focus their time here -- especially folks with sysop bits -- really ought to have some idea of the lay of the land before taking action.
More than being a single collective community, Wikipedia is a collection of overlapping communities. One subcommunity cares more that disruptive editors be prevented from continuing to disrupt; another cares more about mainspace quality issues, specifically copyright. Both bring value to Wikipedia and should be respected. So the question becomes: when an indef blocked editor flags a copyvio, what's the best way to deal with it?
From the motivation of the blocked editor standpoint, the likely possibilities are:

• legitimate concern over copyright violation
• attention seeking behavior.

The best course action is one that doesn't require speculation to what the motivation is; there are actually two good choices. One is to fix the copyright with a neutral message: i.e. "rm copyvio" not "remove copyright violation that indef blocked editor flagged..." The second is to ignore it. The former is win-win in that the content is improved and the flagging editor gets minimal attention. The second doesn't benefit mainspace but provides total denial.
Staring another ANI thread when it was already hashed through five months ago is not the way to "deny" attention; it's more like, as David Bowie sang years ago, "putting out a fire with gas-o-line".
There's a non-archived discussion at blocking policy on this very issue; three months old and not many comments. We're much better at participating when we have a specific individual to attack/defend than an abstract principle. In WIkipedia-as-it-should-be, we'd all comment on the blocking policy talk page and come to a consensus on talk page unblock only yes or talk page unblock only no. In Wikipedia-as-it-is, I honestly and regretfully expect that that discussion will end in the usual "no-consensus" muddle and we'll just keep doing this again and again ... NE Ent 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a lovely, long answer, and much of what you say is true. Read my answer above to Tarc though - if you don't want ongoing drama, which you say you don't, this is a hell of an odd path to choose. Begoon ^talk 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

He's not blocked exclusively for reporting copyvios. The deciding factor is that he's grandstanding and baiting by saying that he's going to evade the block if people don't hop to it and do what he wants them to do. This is manipulative, and it's an abuse of the talk page. Removing talk page access prevents the grandstanding, baiting and manipulation. It also shows Russavia that he has to grow up and act responsibly if he wants to get unblocked. If he doesn't want to be unblocked, he should completely leave the project. If he wants to report copyvios, he can do so via alternative channels that have already been enumerated. Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I concur with all of that. And in case anyone missed any of the channels Cullen enumerated, here they are:

OTRS. His Commons talk page. Emailing his friends. Starting a blog called "Wikipedia Copyright Violations Report". Paper, a pen, a stamp and an envelope. A Western Union telegram. Fax. Telex. Sadly, the Pony Express has gone out of business. Anything but English Wikipedia. Begoon ^talk 17:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

But yet en-wiki is where these copyvio problems exist, and where they should be handled. Not a whole lot of people will take notice if he starts broadcasting copyvios on an external site, especially if he can't tell us on en-wiki about it now that his talk is removed. People will take notice if he posts them on en-wiki precisely because the issues are on en-wiki. KonveyorBelt 18:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The stupidity of this is painful. Removing copy-vios from Wikipedia is a good thing. Full stop. I'm glad to see some reasonable editors amongst the usual torches-and-pitchforks. The fact that some editors view a removal of copy-vios by a blocked editor no differently that a blocked editor adding copy-vios is simply mind-numbing. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Socking or threatening to sock is a very bad thing. Full stop. Fixing copyvios without socking or threatening to sock? Priceless. And if R. and just continued to do that, he'd still have talk page access. Instead.... BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Evading a block to vandalize is socking. Evading a block to continue an argument is socking. Fixing copy-vios is not socking. Vowing to fix copy-vios on one's talk-page is not "threatening to sock". Wikilaywering with the argument: "well it's technically still socking" is far more disruptive than anything with which Russ has "threatened" us. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    • How about an indef blocked user grandstanding and baiting on his talk page? Do you think that's good? If Russ were to quietly sock and do good edits I would 100 percent ignore him. It's the grandstanding and baiting that's the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
      • @Jfr&b: Wikilawyering? The only "wikilawyering" going on is from an editor trying to carve out a loophole that exists neither in policy nor practice. Editing with an IP while blocked is evading a block, period, full stop. (No "nudge nudge, wink wink", just "say no more".) BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Joefromrandb, for the benefit of everyone reading this, could you please quote those parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which support your claim that evading a block to fix a copyvio is permitted? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support restoration I am not aware of any disruptive edits that this user may have made on his talk page while blocked. Notifying the project about copyright violations certainly isn't disruptive, but is something which is very much needed. Also, some of the comments above do not make sense. Some users seem to have the opinion that he is free to report copyright violations and that people are free to act when the copyright violations have been discovered, but the user should not report the violations to his talk page but somewhere else. What would this achieve? What is the difference between reporting copyright violations on a talk page on this project or on a page on Commons, if the outcome still is that the content will be deleted? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Do you think his threat to sock unless somebody did his bidding were appropriate, collegial, and helpful to Wikipedia? Jehochman ^Talk 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support revocation. Russavia's use of his talk page to report copyright violations was both useful and tolerable, up to the point where he started issuing threats. Now that he's making a nuisance of himself by openly flouting community decisions, the benefits of talk page access no longer outweigh the drawbacks. Identifying copyright violations isn't so specialized a skill that we can't do without the trickle of reports he provides; anyone active at Wikipedia:Copyright problems can see that spotting copyvios on Wikipedia is like shooting fish in a barrel. More help there from editors in good standing is always welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It often seems that certain Wikipedians have an unhealthy obsession with Russavia. He may have some faults (who doesn't?), but he also has a lot of good points, and from what I can see, he's quite often been wronged against - that's not to say he's a living saint either. If people don't like his talk page, then they have the option of taking it off their watch list and ignoring it. Regarding socking/block evasion, I wonder if that's really a wise path to tread for him and for those who are so concerned about it. When there is a will and an inclination it's just as easy to check user, as it is to sock - so I fail to see why some here are becoming quite so hysterical on the subject.  Giano  09:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have restored talk page access on condition that he won't use the page to rile other editors. For instance, he shouldn't announce plans to sock, nor insult people nor anything else that would annoy. If he wants to politely list copyright violations, that's acceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 10:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Jehochman, that's the most sensible solution.  Giano  11:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, a sensible step to take at this time, as long as we all remember the attached conditions if anything happens in the future. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Without going into this convoluted case itself, may I suggest to the (talk page) unblocking admin that a brief notice be placed on the now-unblocked talk page summing up the situation, so that the user in question and others posting there are under no illusions as to consequences. Jusdafax 13:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• He did NE Ent 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

This one has been all over the place: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And now this; anybody home? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the link from the template per WP:BLP. I'm not going to go as far as to say that any mention of the blog is a BLP violation, but I do think putting it at the top of a controversial AFD is a bad idea and brings unneeded attention to the blogger.--v/r - TP 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

TParis, thanks for the help on both of these messy messes. Because I (unwisely) posted a two-fer, the main issue may have been missed: is this a reasonable redirect (part of that messy AFD situation)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I see you got that too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Re: the Cannabis (drug) → Marijuana WP:Requested move debate, you cited "non-admin close, best have that reviewed" in your edit summary reverting Red Slash's edit. As I suggested on your talk page, since you appear to be the one who's not satisfied with the WP:RM discussion outcome and thinks a review should be done, it makes sense that you should initiate the process by requesting a WP:Move review. Msnicki (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you had mentioned WP:Move review on my talk, I would have gone there. But since I've never heard of the place, and you didn't mention it, here we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are here now but this is the wrong place. There's no help for you here except just the advice that if you want your concern heard, you should request a WP:Move review. Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I closed the move request. Most of those who opposed the move stated their opposition in terms of it being less common or an Americanism, both of which are demonstrably untrue (as far as the sources show). Unless I am badly misreading WP:NATURAL, we choose even less ideal titles if they disambiguate naturally from other possible topics. Unless I am badly misreading WP:COMMONNAME, we choose the demonstrably more common title over, as one editor later commented, a title asserted by some editors to be preferred in certain technical fields. There is no policy or guideline to suggest keeping the article at Cannabis (drug) and two very good ones to move it. Regardless, we don't re-fight move requests at this venue in most cases, and only the most flagrantly misguided closes would be outright reverted. Red Slash 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Red Slash: and you don't consider it fragrantly misguided to close a move discussion when you can't perform the move yourself? You're a non-admin, which means you can't move it, it's discouraged that you close the discussion at all if the result is to move (or where any administrative action is needed), and any administrator is free to revert your closure. Considering there was actually more opposition to a move than support at the time, your close certainly is misguided. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"fragrantly misguided" ← you mean something smelled fishy about it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I don't, Moe Epsilon. Happens all the time at WP:RM. (See the backlog at the bottom of the page? Imagine what it'd be like if we left all of the requests to the administrators! Often, the regulars can't close them anyway because they're involved.) As the closing instructions for RMs state, at Wikipedia, we judge consensus by weighing the strength of the arguments--in other words, it's WP:NOTAVOTE. I don't get the idea that there was "more opposition than support"--how is the number of !votes relevant? There were two policies in favor and a bunch of "it's an Americanism" arguments against, which were untrue (demonstrably so) as well as irrelevant (WP:ARTCON). Second, I've never witnessed any admin reverting a closure by a non-admin closer. (Is that different at WP:AFD?) I've closed probably thirty or so move requests and had two taken to move review (one stood, and I self-reverted my close on the other) but never had one reverted. I've been at Wikipedia for nine years and have in fact never even heard of a move closure being summarily reverted by an admin, ever. Red Slash 05:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

...and you'll notice that no one has reversed you here :) My comment below reflects the fact that articles are to be considered on their own merits, including titles, in move discussions. I disagree with your assessment that the weight of COMMONNAME outdoes user reservations, but disagreement is a fact of life. I don't think you did anything wrong, I just disagree with the reading. Keegan (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Keegan. I appreciate that. I filed a move review at WP:MRV (and also slightly rewrote my comment here) and will probably take a bit of a wikibreak--man, this was exhausting. Red Slash 06:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been recently, but I've closed my share of controversial requested moves over the years. Thanks for filing the MRV, take some time gnoming, but really it's all water under a very large bridge. Keegan (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon, may I request that if you wish to question the close, that you do so by requesting a WP:Move review, stating your guidelines-based reasons (which, so far, you have failed to provide). That is the process we have for registering an objection and it allows a full debate. This is not the appropriate forum. We cannot suspend the rules because you're an admin and Red Slash is not. Admins are not God. They are expected to follow the guidelines, the same as the rest of us. Msnicki (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki, it's not so cut-and-dry as policy, guidelines, and process. The article has not been moved, so is move review the appropriate forum? It seems to me that it's more reasonable that an admin review a closure that, since it involves admin buttons to make happen, should have been closed by an admin.

A further thought on the closure: Guidelines are guidelines, they are not binding and when there is clear and equal division on a discussion over such a guideline the guideline does not trump how the community feels about a particular article. Please don't let bureaucracy interfere with community consensus or lack thereof.

That being said, I recommend rebooting the move discussion if the proponents feel that they have compelling evidence and can provide consensus. Short of that, I decline the move. Keegan (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Red Slate should have participated and not deemed him or herself as closer as they clearly support the move request. More people opposed than support this move but Red Slate has taken it on him or herself to discount the arguments of long term editors who have been editing the cannabis articles for years for reasons that arent clear or affirmed in any policies or guidelines. This is a completely unsatisfactory close, I do fully agree that the RM should be re-opened for at least 1 more week and a serious effort made to involve more people in the naming process as this is one of wikipedia's most popular articles and we havent even had 20 ppl participating. Given that the Americanization of this article is a core argument against the RM (and one unbelievably discounted by the closer) that all US editors should recuse themselves from closing. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Telling every American editor (including myself) to recuse is silly, SqueakBox. That is assuming that every American editor is unable to read and evaluate consensus or give an opinion that is not international (and it's pretty insulting at that). All that would be left is anti-American editors left shouting "Americanism!" and shutting the discussion down, which is no better. I also find it funny no other countries get called out on Wikipedia, never a cry of "Britishism!" or "Canadianism!" is uttered, it's the dirty Americans, apparently.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not because it's "funny"; it's because Wikipedia doesn't have the problems with Britishism or Canadianism that it does with Americanism. That said, the call for all American editors to recuse is too foolish to rate a comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I base my request on Red Slate's behaviour and the behaviour of the original RM requester, by asking others to recuse I am not saying every American editor is the same. But more to the point you are totally wrong that I wouldnt say exactly the same if somebody was trying to impose a British name on an internationally themed article as I would without hesitation. The reason I called out "Americanism" is absolutely not because I am anti America but simply because in this case editors are trying to Americanize an international article and your claim that because of this people are picking on Americans is pathetic and not requiring of a serious response♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

editors are trying to Americanize an international article -- excellent job of assuming good faith. Keep calm and get back to work.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox: I hope you know I came to this discussion because I firmly against the way the move discussion was closed (by an American) and !voted to re-open to the discussion at the move review. By seriously suggesting that all Americans recuse is painting us all with the same brush that Americans couldn't close the RM. I know you don't intend to do that; I know you have the best of intentions when you suggested it though. I think you should probably give us benefit of the doubt that most editors who contribute here are going to write their variation of English based on whichever country they live in, and that is how things get Americanized (or -ized by whichever country visits a particular article the most), not because we are trying to force it on other variations. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)