Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive651

An editor, User:DrMicro has contributed a number of articles on obscure species of microorganisms--very useful. It now appears there may be a lot of WP:OR in these articles, which will have to be checked.

Right now, though, he insists that the Plasmodium article's taxobox must include a list of 274 species. Other editors, including myself, have tried to remove this list and put it in the article, but, for various, endless arguments, DrMicro insists the list can only be in the taxobox, not in the article, not in another article, nowhere but the taxobox.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] We have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page.[13]

He is now engaged in battles on OR, admitting his subgenus assignments are OR, which means they must be checked (see talk page link).[14]

This is not just a 3RR issue, it includes time needed to research and edit the list elsewhere without being accused by DrMicro of vandalism for moving the list from taxobox.[15][16][17][18][19] (It appears that 3 of these are not accusations, but mistakes, so this long list here might include only 1 or 2 actual such accusations, but also the accusations in edit summaries on the article as linked above.)

Can one level headed administrator assist in this matter? Protecting the article with the 274 species in the taxobox will not be helpful, as long lists of 100s of items are not the purpose of an information box on wikipedia. What would be helpful would be an attempt to ask DrMicro to simply stop editing the article for long enough for other editors to create a list in the article or elsewhere and investigate his OR on subgenera. The latter will require access to a research library. I am glad to do it, but not in the midst of being accused of vandalism for trying to make the taxobox readable. I think if he backed off for long enough for others to do any work, he would see that the list of 274 species can be located in a useful manner without being in the taxobox. However, this can't be demonstrated against his single-mindedness to maintain it only in the taxobox.

If it is reasonable to request the intervention of a single level headed administrator and one such person volunteers, please work on the article talk page or the user talk page as appropriate. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a clear warning to DrMicro, and I am now watching the page. Since it is clear that the issue has been extensively discussed and DrMicro's position is isolated (as well as unreasonable), I will respond to any further revert-warring with a suitable block. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering. I think your initial warning and monitoring will be sufficient result from this AN/I request. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest protecting the page for say 2 weeks without fear for the wrong version, and have people work it out. I am willing to assist with this discussion. I think the Drosophila article is an good example of how it can be solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am against protecting the wrong version because of the importance of this article and because the additional text in the taxobox crashes my (not-too)smartphone's browser. Still, if it amounts to that, there's not that great an inconvenience. I do like the Drosophila article, also. Please feel free to suggest it on the talk page, if you have not already. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:184.74.22.161 is not careful with WP:V or WP:UNDUE. Adds material from sites like www.lifesitenews.com and catholic.com [20], quotes bunch of people without specifying why they are significant (same diff), gives too much space to a non-significant person disagreeing with entire scientific organizations [21]. This behaviour repeats itself in articles like Same-sex marriage, Same-sex marriage and the family.Phoenix of9 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to warrant an AN/I discussion; furthermore, note that the IP is engaging in discussion and is attempting to address your concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:184.74.22.161 appears to be doing their best to solve this dispute. They have even indicated their willingness to remove information they have added simply to satisfy another user (User:Phoenix_of9) here. I see no problem with their behaviour, if this is the concern at hand. Tomayres (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep adding violent Christian material, this is a problem. See the section below. Phoenix of9 02:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I do not 'keep' doing anything. I have responded to your second ANI below. Tomayres (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Explanation by Ssilvers is accepted Mjroots (talk)

I'm raising the issue of editing to the Ellen Terry article by Ssilvers (talk · contribs) here as this editor seems to be saying one thing and then doing the opposite.

I added the {{Tenterden}} template to the article at 18:51 yesterday. Ssilvers removed it at 21:48 as a "tangentially related navbox". Terry lived in Tenterden for 28 years, so the template is hardly tangentially related and the Ellen Terry article is linked on the template. I reverted the removal at 21:48, with an explanation for this in my edit summary. I also explained the reversion at 22:00 on the article's talk page. I also notified Ssilvers of the revert at 22:02, which he removed at 22:03 with an edit summary stating that he was fine with the revert.

At 22:13, Ssilvers removed the template again, yet made no mention of the removal in his edit summary. I'm making no comment on the rest of that edit, but the removal of the template after stating that he was fine with it and with a false edit summary is bordering on disruptive editing or a ownership issue. I've readded the template, and stand by my edit summary.

Apart from discussing the issue, which I have attempted to do without success, is there anything else I can do apart from raising the issue here? I'm unable to take any administrative action myself as I'm involved in the issue, but I will state that I don't believe that this is a blocking issue at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I am mystified by that edit I made. I must have mistakenly gone back to a much earlier version of the article by mistake. I certainly did not intend to delete all that text, images, etc. While it is true that I deleted the insertion by Mjroots of the {{Tenterden}} template earlier in the day (and don't think it should go in the article), I did not intend to delete it a second time, so sorry about that Mjroots. I was going to leave it there, although now that we're here, what do other people think about that? Anyhow, I think I have now restored the article and included the most important edits made by a third editor today. Any comments or further corrections are welcome. Best regards, and again, sorry for my sloppiness. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, explanation and apology accepted. Let's close this and move on. Mjroots (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see that I had been reviewing edits back in October 2009 and mistakenly edited that version instead of the new version. Again, sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would still be interested in any experienced editor's take on this navbox and the ones referenced on my talk page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Colonel Warden indefinitely (see below) for disruptive editing.

• This offense: Moving tags from the top of an article to the bottom, in defiance of convention codified at WP:TC, here. I asked him to explain himself four and a half hours ago, and have received no reply.
  • His prior warning, for a similar incident less than two weeks ago (Nov 10th), as discussed previously at ANI, is here.
• Other recent and relevant incidents that contribute to this outcome:
  • Moving articles during AfD in a manner that disrupted the AfD outcome. The discussion was held less than a week ago, on November 16th. A topic ban proposal I authored but opposed received less than 50% support.
  • Omitting the un-redirecting of an article in an edit summary, as raised by User:Kww on my talk page on November 15th, at which point I again warned him. Note that Colonel Warden has been reprimanded for such edit summary omissions as early as December, 2008 here at ANI.
  • Improperly non-administratively closing an AfD discussion to which no speedy keep criterion applied, on October 14th, less than six weeks ago.

Sadly, Colonel Warden's involvement at ANI goes back years. While there is no doubt he contributes meaningfully to the encyclopedia. His conduct has been deficient in so many ways, despite multiple warnings and ANI threads, that the disruption is unconscionable; as a long-time contributor, his competence has not been questioned, so attributing ever-shifting deviations from editing expectations to simple mistakes strains credulity.

I do not believe in punitive or hand-slapping blocks, so I've blocked Colonel Warden indefinitely. Not infinitely, but until such time as the community and Colonel Warden are able to come to a mutual agreement about the conditions under which he may positively and productively participate in Wikipedia. While the community may feel free to support additional outcomes, I recommend one of the following:

• Unblock immediately the block itself will serve as a warning against Colonel Warden taking disruptive actions in the future, and waiting for him to apologize and/or promise not to do it again might be construed as punitive and/or coercing crocodile tears from him.
• Craft a community restriction as a condition of unblocking, akin to the one I proposed last week which failed to achieve consensus. I leave the specifics to someone else.

It's my hope that Colonel Warden will choose to edit with appropriate caution and respect for the deletion process, and I encourage the community's input on how we can best accomplish this. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make sure I understand the timeline:
  • he makes that edit at 12:46 yesterday
  • he stops editing at 16:something today
  • you warn him about the edit at 18:58 today
  • he does not log in
  • you block him at 23:something today

Is that about right? I guess my suggestion then would be to unblock immediately and wait for him to answer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Colonel Warden was warned on November 15 about his behavior. He continued anyway. I say let the block stand until conditions for his unblock can be agreed upon. AniMate 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As the question was put to me: is there anything Colonel Warden would have said in explanation that would have altered the situation, given the spate of recent warnings he's received? I'm not opposed to unblocking him and admitting my error if he managed to convince me he was wrong, but that seems sufficiently unlikely to make delaying the response unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See: User talk:Jclemens#Colonel Warden, yet again, where much of this was initially discussed.

Someone craft some sort of restriction, such as last week's, plus a general restriction re disruption. The block should stand, in the meantime.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support open-ended block until he agrees to conditions such as...

1. No editing of article maintenance and/or cleanup tags (ie. adding them is fine, but moving and/or deleting is not);
2. No moving of articles currently at any stage in the deletion process;
3. No actions regarding the deletion process other than nomination and participation in discussions (ie. no removing PROD-tags, no closing XfDs etc.);
4. All edits to be accompanied by a comprehensive summary to the extent that a reasonable person would expect;

I tend to think that this would make all our lives a bit easier. Thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Be more specific on the edit summaries: "not undo or modify any redirects without explicitly stating in his edit summary that he is undoing a redirect and explaining the policy or guideline which justifies his change."—Kww(talk) 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really object to that, though it would absolutely have been covered by a requirement for comprehensive edit-summaries as construed by the man on the Clapham omnibus...;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd question whether forbidding the removal of PROD tags is necessarily appropriate. My understanding is that any deprod is considered valid, even if done in bad faith. I would not question, however, requiring strict compliance with WP:CONTESTED, especially requiring the use of {{deprod}} if it's felt there's substantial disruption of the PROD process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden has the habit of adding extremely dodgy sources to articles in order to removed PROD tags. It's apparent to me that the tag shouldn't be removed until a second editor has had a chance to review.—Kww(talk) 13:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I think TT has hit on all the relevant points of CW's disruptive behavior. Thanks to JClemens for accurately reading the situation taking the necessary action. SnottyWong ^gab 23:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support TreasuryTag's restrictions. AniMate 00:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment — This is good stuff, but it's missing:

  "Colonel Warden is topic banned from Articles for Deletion, broadly construed, for three months." (from Jclemens' thread in the prior ANI)

  This is the crux of his disruption. And, ya, I see that this could break the proposal.

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Let's go with restricting the behavior first. If he acts up, we can always remove him from AfDs at a later time. AniMate 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Sigh. I do support this, but maintain that more is necessary and hope others will nudge things further. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'm being a pragmatist. There's no way the Keep Squad will let him be blocked from AfDs. I do hope that consensus is reached for these restrictions, but I also think this block should stand for a couple of days. I can see no good faith reason for him to move those tags. AniMate 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I see that; and that, too. Does teh {{rescue}} template work on ANI threads? ;) The 'necessary' can be layered-on per subsequent discussion. I have significant experience with the "You're blocked" message, mostly when I tried, I was actually focused on 'viewing source', here, for efforts related to other projects. It's damned-effective at conveying the community's ire, so I agree that it should stand for days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I am often offended, but never surprised at the things you two say. Thank you for your kind comments, Deletionist Cabal. (/sarcasm, but not) Silverseren^C 00:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block and Support proposed restrictions/conditions for unblock. Not sure about the ban from AfD, OK either way. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block, Support TT's unblock requirements proposal, Oppose AfD topic ban. CW's behavior is clearly disruptive, but topic ban is probably too much at this point, and as AniMate says, it can always be done later if needed. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Confused - Warning on 15th was for removing a citation needed tag; not moving one (for which no warning seems to have been issued). There seems to be one and only one article this was done to (I didn't find a second in the edit history, and only one diff on his talk page). Is this a disruption block or a community patience exhausted block? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's both. Colonel Warden has been behaving in a disruptive manner and people are tired of it. AniMate 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• And This ANI gives more background to the maintenance tags disruption issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• My comments at User talk:Colonel Warden#Explain yourself. in response to his comments there may be illuminating. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's evident to ANI participants that CW has not been making friends and influencing people, yet I don't see a pattern of serious disruption. Pops up, is resolved, something else pops up a month later, seems resolved, something else a month after that...

I don't know what that pattern makes; I would think "User conduct RFC" on first impression, not an indef for disruption.

Usually, I notice if people here are actually reaching the edge of truly exhausted community patience. I never got the sense of that here, with CW. I have no pretention that I couldn't just be missing the pattern - there's godawful much more stuff going on around here than any one human can coherently drink from the firehose. But I'm surprised.

Surprise is making me want evidence. There's A (singular) diff for the current block. There has been a tendency for there to be large ANI threads in the past with one or two diffs, and not a good pattern shown there either. I haven't seen a fully developed history of ANI incidents, etc.

In the name of fairness and reasonable information - I would like to request that someone pull together a reasonable evidence section for this request, so that people not closely following the CW saga can get a better picture of the events which are being argued warrant relatively significant enforcement.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quick recap: Colonel Warden was first discussed at ANI for a clear pattern of inappropriately removing cleanup tags, and continuing this behavior after ignoring a warning on his talk page. See the original thread here and the following diffs: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. He was given a clear warning in that ANI thread that he should not continue this behavior. Four days later he continued his behavior, as can be seen here. He was again given another warning on his talk page (by Jclemens), and was discussed at length at User talk:Black Kite/Archive 35#Colonel Warden is at it again. Despite the knowledge that he is skating on thin ice with regard to cleanup tags, he made yet another disruptive edit only a week after his second warning, where instead of deleting cleanup tags, he moved them to the bottom of the page. Technically, moving them to the bottom of the page isn't the same as deleting them, but it accomplishes the same thing and shouldn't be viewed any differently (lest we play into CW's thinly veiled attempt to game the system and avoid a block on a technicality). Hopefully this recap puts the pattern in perspective. SnottyWong ^communicate 02:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block, Support unblock requirement, but no topic-ban from AfD yet unless CW repeats anything like the moving of articles or closing AfDs wrongly (per above). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• #2 is unnecessary, as explained at length before. AFD is designed to accommodate this. You're going with the pile-on-everything-and-anything approach to this sort of thing, which is never good, as experience should have taught at least some of the people in this discussion. Stick to just the things that are actually problems. Read the prior discussion about page moves, don't just blindly hyperlink to it, to see what Colonel Warden said on the subject, including what xe said xe would do in the future. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I can agree with that assessment. #2 does seem to be somewhat tangential to the immediate issue at hand. The pattern of disruptively moving articles during AfD is not as clear as the cleanup tag problem, and so it is plausible to AGF in that case and assume it was an isolated mistake. In addition, CW seems to have actually made an effort to correct that behavior. SnottyWong ^chat 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Support a topic ban preventing him from editing AfDs and articles that are the subjects of AfDs for a reasonable period or until he agrees not to act disruptively by moving articles, citing "sources" that he presumably knows are not relevant to establishing the notability of topics, and all the other tricks he's developed. (Ventriloquizing A Nobody seems a particularly poor choice of tactic, given that editor's ultimate fate.) Deor (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse two week block with topic ban I think changing the block to two weeks and after the block is up an indefinite topic ban to prevent further disruption. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• endorse To some extent I feel this is building a mountain out of a molehill, but I agree his actions seem designed to disrupt and/or annoy other users. I'd really like to have a just "don't be disruptive" clause and move along, but I don't know that will work. So: Endorse 4 for certain, 3 assuming that doesn't mean he can't work to improve an article (though I think removing prods should be fine) and 1 assuming it doesn't mean he can't ask others to check an article and remove the tags if they think they should go (otherwise we end up with tags where they need to be removed and we are worse off). Weakly oppose 2 per Uncle G. I'd like to see a time limit on all this (say 6 months) at least #1. Oh, oppose other bans/blocks/etc. Hobit (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• endorse block and support some form of restrictions: I felt that the AFD mess was a genuine mistake, and the article was dramatically improved. But I talked to Colonel several weeks ago about moving maintenance templates and deleting them without addressing the issues - the excuse being that they were cosmetically not very nice. This is a recurring issue and CW is definitely aware of community views on the matter --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the community is aware of the views of the editorship at large and in practice on the matter, though. There's a reason that Wikipedia:Perennial proposals includes this. I can name several prominent editors — SimonP, David Gerard, Tony Sidaway, and Philip Baird Shearer spring immediately to mind — who have over the years expressed their dislike of the festivals of coloured boxes that some articles become, or who have objected to the notion that all tags should go at the top of an article in a big banner blindness lump. Even at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Maintenance tags it has already been mentioned that not all maintenance tags create boxes, let alone go at the top of the article, even now. The community is not nearly as unanimous on this subject in practice as Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup would lead one to think. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block and support topic ban. Colonel Warden should be banned from dicking around with maintenance tags, editing in any way articles under discussion at AfD and using deceptive edit summaries. These are the three major ways his behaviour has been disruptive. I would have recommended an unblock as well, but since he's now wringing his hands and moaning about how hard done by he is (as though he doesn't know full well that his behaviour has been dodgier than the Average Joes buying a second-hand Dodge Charger in Dodge City), I support about a week-long block. I do not support banning him from commenting in AfD discussions. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever. Seems unlikely that giving deletionists carte blank to add thousands of unsightly tags is going to improve the encyclopaedia if next to no one with real talent wants to editor here anymore. Unless the Colonel is set free, there certainly wont be anymore of my hauntingly beautiful literary articles or very expert work on the interplay between international finance, politics and economic affairs. But maybe you guys know what youre doing... FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  giving deletionists carte blank to add thousands of unsightly tags is a deliberate misreading of the situation, as you well know. Why would you even bother? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 10:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Favor Unblock: No doubt CW is ruffling some feathers intentionally here, but I say let the block expire in a typical amount of time (24/48 hours?) like a normal block punishment. Going directly to an indefinite block does not seem to fit this "crime" if it indeed was a crime. Now, I know its quite horrible that CW gets upset in AfD when notable topic articles are nominated for deletion when the articles are in bad shape, but could be improved. Perhaps if CW was an admin and, say, deleted a slew of unreferenced BLPs along with eyebrow raising declarations and caused mayhem by it he would be rewarded for it, but instead he chooses to try to improve articles. Punish behavior that violates rules when we must, but don't punish his good goals.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• But no block is meant to be a punishment ever. Blocks are preventative not punitive. In other words there is no such thing as a punishment that fits the crime. There are preventative measures that fit the disruption and indefinite blocks followed by discussions of long term solutions prior to unblock certainly fit this current disruption.Griswaldo (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block until this user demonstrates that he gets it, and ceases the annoyingly disruptive behavior that leads us to An/I week after week after week. I'm also concerned about DGG's willingness to unblock a fellow ARS comrade, as this is similarly protective/enabling behavior shown for menaces like "A Nobody". This is not a healthy mentality, and certainly not what one would expect from an admin. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the cat's out of the bag now. Hopefully the RFC/U will bring desired results, if it can avoid being hijacked by the fan club. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we get more uninvolved administrator comments here? Please use this section for admin comments, community members use the general section above. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can repeat or move what I said above, if you like: I have no prior involvement with CW and I endorse the block and support the restrictions/conditions for an unblock. I suspect I am not the only uninvolved admin who posted above. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not 100% sure I like the admin/nonadmin dichotomy (although the involved/uninvolved distinction might be useful), but I won't fight it right now. I'm a little uncomfortable with how this played out, and for a long term editor editing in good faith and no emergency, I would have preferred an RFCU before a block. It's quite possible that CW will need to modify his behavior some, but I don't think the long term pattern of disruption is nearly as clear cut as has been implied. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well you should; the Community consists of uninvolved users - not simply uninvolved administrators, so the unsubtle/subtle attempts to change this set up is not acceptable. ANI is not an AE board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Non-admin response: I find this entire thing to be utterly ridiculous. The recent AfD thing was, as I raised my opinion there, not an important issue and a mistake on CW's part, which left an improved article all in all. Furthermore, why the heck does someone get indefinitely banned when they move some tags on an article to the bottom of an article? I've seen this done a number of times by various users and i've never heard of WP:TC before this discussion. The edit summary thing from the 16th not really an issue at all. If it was being used to cover up vandalism or perpetuate a edit war, that would be one thing. And then, bringing up something from six weeks ago that is on a subject that has nothing to do with this is strange. Again, this seems like an over-reaction. Silverseren^C 05:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• How many mistakes does Colonel Warden get in his participation in AfD's and article rescue? Is he incompetent or gaming the system? You tell me; either way, his actual conduct has been consistently below that we expect of editors. Warnings haven't worked--I've given him two recently. You tell me what it will take to get Colonel Warden to participate in a forthright manner, and I'll back it 100%. If there's consensus on the circumstances under which he can be unblocked and contribute, I'll be happy to either do it myself or have any handy administrator do it. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm sure you're not really that dumb, Seren. If you're told in no uncertain terms by multiple editors that persistently removing maintenance tags is disruptive, do you think "OK I will stop doing that", or as CW has, do you think "well, I'm going to ignore all those people, but if I delete the tags I'll get blocked - so how can I get rid of them without actually deleting them ... oh I know, I'll move them to the bottom of the page where no-one can see them!". The former is what most editors would do, the latter is deliberate disruption. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving the tags down, following all that, was blockworthy disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am not making any assumptions on CW's motives. I'm pointing out that numerous people put or move tags related to references or categories to the associated sections near the bottom. If you wish to assume bad faith about CW, feel free to do so, but i'm not that type of person. Silverseren^C 07:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Really? How prevalent are {{Article issues}} tags at the bottom of articles? How many other editors move tags there during AfD discussions? How many editors do so when they've been warned multiple times in the past couple of weeks for odd and unusual editing patterns that have disrupted AfDs? Go read his latest response and tell me what you see: a user acknowledging that his editing style has consistently been held to be not up to expectations? A user who admits he should have known better? What do you see? Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I've read thousands upon thousands of articles on en.WP and cannot recall ever once seeing those colour-banded worry tags at the bottom of an article, until I saw the CW diff. I guess they get put down there now and then but I think it's fair to say, it almost never happens. Ss says, "numerous people put or move tags [...] near the bottom." I'd truly like to see some diffs showing this, because putting them at the bottom utterly thwarts what they're meant to do, which is to make a reader aware of any editorial worries before they begin reading. I also think this is why CW put them at the bottom, he was hiding them. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The only cleanup tags that routinely goes at the bottom of the page are ones that pertain to categories. Also, if a user is not familiar with (or has "never heard of") WP:TC, then they really shouldn't be touching cleanup tags at all. That's like an admin who is unaware of WP:BLOCK going around blocking people for no reason. SnottyWong ^babble 15:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• You are correct that the Article issues tag is not likely to be moved down, but i'm willing to believe that that was an accident or mistake on CW's part, as he did also move down the reference list and categories tags. I really don't see the harm in doing so, however, which is why I still believe that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. The tags have little to do with an AfD discussion, since its supposed to be about the notability of the article subject, not the number of tags slapped on the article. And I did read his latest response and I thought it well-thought out and it addressed the various points that you have raised, especially on pointing out that WP:TC is neither a policy or a guideline. And he has a good point in the fact that you have been rather negative toward him in the past few weeks. Silverseren^C 16:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to each of CW's points on his talk page. You're right that WP:TC is neither a policy nor a guideline. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article message boxes) clearly is a relevant, long-standing guideline which states that such templates "go at the top of articles/sections, and identify problems or issues with the article." The argument that there is no consensus for the proper location of cleanup tags is pretty tenuous. SnottyWong ^comment 16:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And you expect him to know about every aspect of the manual of style? I know very little about it myself and certainly nothing about individual pages of it. Silverseren^C 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious. Yes, I expect a user with 20,000+ edits to be familiar with the MOS. Is that too much to ask? Even if he's not familiar with that particular page of the MOS, I would expect any editor who has looked at tens of thousands of articles to be capable of recognizing the pattern that everyone puts cleanup tags at the top of the article. Everyone. I would bet the farm that if we programmed a bot to look at every article on Wikipedia that has a cleanup tag (with the exception of category-related tags, or tags that only refer to a section and not the whole article), at least 99.99% of the articles would have the cleanup tags at the top of the article. I only have made less than a third of the edits that CW does, and I am familiar with the convention and have no problem understanding it. This is wikilawyering at its best. As many have said already: if he doesn't understand the conventions and guidelines for cleanup tags by this point, then he is completely incompetent. If he does understand them, then he is purposely disrupting. Either way, we don't need completely incompetent people nor do we need intentionally disruptive people on WP. SnottyWong ^verbalize 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think almost experienced editor is bound to understand that the tags are wholly thwarted if they're not at the top, where a reader will see them before they begin reading the text. Why else would CW have put them at the bottom? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse current block, and support an unblock once an RFC/U is opened, as per above by Floquenbeam. Nakon 05:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unless he gives an indication of what he'll stop doing, or understands what he should avoid doing, I think in this case (right at this point in time), formal restrictions would prolong the agony of it all. Endorse RfC/U by involved parties. But note, in an RfC/U, the only place he would be able to respond is in his response section, and on the RfC/U talk page. No comment on the block or potential unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block as strongly as I possibly can. As I see there is not unanimous support for JC, I am willing to unblock, though I like to avoid conflict and would prefer if someone else did it, and to oppose any topic ban. This is a ridiculous attack on an excellent editor and one of the most helpful contributors to AfD-- based on what are trivial misdemeanors. (I am not being uncritical: there was a short burst of what looked like WP:POINt in the past, which did need attention, and received it. Had he continued on large scale detagging U would not be supporting him, but these are individual articles.) The additional events are as minor as can reasonably be imagined. Removing a single citation needed tag is cause for a talk page discussion not a block. I have removed many unnnecessary and disruptive such citation needed tags, (along, of course, with adding others when they are needed). If someone removes a tag I've placed, And if the matter is moving a tag, that's about as trivial an offense as can be imagined. Seizing on this as a attack for a block must have am motive, and I cannot think of a good one. I do not try to block them. What else is there, Jclemens? You've never to my knowledge been this unreasonable before, and there must be some reason--do you think perhaps he is personally out to spite you in particular--if so, you should not be blocking. If an RfC is needed, open one, but remember that such action tend to lead to the comments about everyone concerned. The idea of blocking until an RfC is opened is total nonsense--what purpose is supposed to be served by that? Punish first, and discuss afterwards? DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Since the consensus here is very clearly that some sort of block is appropriate, I would suggest unblocking before the community has decided on a plan going forward would be extremely unwise. Incidentally, how would an RFC on Colonel Warden involve the actions of anyone else? Who else has been disrupting AfD, screwing around with maintenance tags until they got blocked, and using deceptive edit summaries here? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• How disruptive does an editor that is trying to "save articles" have to get before you would act, DGG? You defended Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles well past any sane point, and Colonel Warden has always been a similar problem editor. It is apparent that Colonel Warden has determined that the most effective way to "save articles" is to disrupt the deletion process. We can't afford to have editors around that intentionally disrupt processes.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• DGG, this is exactly the type of sentiment that enables CW to continue his disruptive behavior. There has never been an acknowledgement of, apology for, or promise to cease CW's cleanup tag jihad. Unblocking him now (before we have seen that acknowledgement, or decided on a topic ban) would send him the message that what he did wasn't really disruptive, and he can continue to find ways to push his POV about how cleanup tags should be used. Also, if I might add, a wheel war unblock coming from someone who is a good friend of CW could be interpreted as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. To this point, no one other than friends of CW have opposed these actions. SnottyWong ^chat 15:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

SW, reverting another admins block is not wheel warring. Reimposing it would be. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, my mistake. Struck through. SnottyWong ^converse 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock, but only pending the filing of an RfC/U. Despite the problems I've had with this user in the past, the blocking does seem a little harsh given the rather quick turnaround time after the final warning. With that said, the community definitely does not approve of the good Colonel's behaviour, and examining the issues rationally in a less heated environment than ANI might be helpful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
• Neutral comment I understand Jclemens' thinking behind the block. I would have thought a short block for disruption followed by discussion, maybe or maybe not leading to an RfCU, would have been more fitting. Now that this has happened, an unblock (as in "shortened to time already blocked") followed by talking with CW about these worries is most likely the way to go from here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at CW's talk page, I no longer think an unblock will help much. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• endorse block Several threads have been started to talk with Colonel Warden and yet he carries on from one disruptive activity to the next, barely escaping blocks each time. It finally caught up with him and this really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.--Crossmr (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Block Colonel Warden has been a pain in the side to the AFD crew, Some type of further action needs to be discussed. I think an RFC/U is best course right now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose the block because no disruptive editing has been cited. It's only convention that places tags at the top--the bottom may well work better for all I know. It is quite in order to move articles during AfD, especially if in doing so one resolves issues that would otherwise lead to deletion of the article. So let's see some actual evidence of disruption, please. He should be unblocked if none is forthcoming. --TS 14:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, CW is a long-term disruptive editor: as noted in Jclemens's summary above, he's been using false edit summaries for years despite complaints. Snottywong provided a good recap of the most recent troubles here.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like a content dispute. There is absolutely no requirement to place cleanup tags according to some preset formula. If JClemens has been harassing this editor because he's doing it differently, he's doing it wrong. That isn't how Wikipedia works, and JClemens and all others should know it. --TS 14:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The MoS guideline about it says they go at the top. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the entire thread and/or the previous ones linked above. When an editor is told by multiple uninvolved editors at their umpteenth visit to ANI that they are being disruptive by removing clearly valid maintenance tags from articles at AfD with deceptive edit summaries (and this after previous disruptions of the AfD process), then would you not suggest to them that deliberately yanking the communities' chain by instead moving the maintenance tags at an article at AfD to the bottom of the article (where they won't be seen) isn't a good idea?. Wouldn't you? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse good grief. Been using misleading edit summaries for years, stating stuff exists in sources that, when examined, is not found there, refuses to be straigthforward about his behavior, uses manifestly bad sources and refuses to correct that behavior and, yes, continues to seek to remove tags after repeated warnings to stop doing so. Only unblock if you get a promise to change the behavior (which would require an acknowledgement that he's been refusing to heed advice from multiple editors for a long period of time). If he continue to insist that he doesn't understand what's going on, then leave him indeffed. Taking him at his word (that he really hasn't understood all this communication) that's a competence problem.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block, and unblock length reduction with suitable conditions. By convention tags are placed the top (with very few exceptions, and {{article issues}} is not one of them). As an experienced user, CW knows or should have known that, especially given that they left the {{rescue}} tag, which they added in the same edit, at the top. With them having been previously warned for disruptive removal of tags, I do not see how it is possible to interpret this edit as anything other than intentional disruption. The incident itself may be minor, but the disruptive intent is evident, and it is the latter that matters. T. Canens (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• After reading their bizarre interpretation of WP:DE on their talk page (as far as I can follow it, the argument goes that, because it is disruption to "disrupt[] progress toward improving an article", and because their edit, in part, "improved the article" by adding references, questioning that edit - even if unrelated to the references - is disruption). Either they are intentionally wikilawyering, or they are totally clueless. I think a reduction is appropriate once the conditions/restrictions are worked out, but I am no longer convinced that time served is a good option here. T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really involved in the current dispute, but I've had run-ins with Colonel Warden in the past (in particular, on bus route AFDs). I'm seeing an editor who perhaps had good intentions at one point, but now seems to have gone past disruption point. There's a reason we're called editors, and Colonel doesn't seem to understand that. Editing involves removing as well as adding material. I endorse the block and the restrictions mentioned. A ban on AFDs is a good idea, perhaps for the future, as this is where most of his disruption originates. AD 16:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm amazed by this. Or perhaps I should not be . This is a classic example of piling on when someone whose has a position one does not like has made some trivial errors. It's the sort of bullying which remains present at Wikipedia. The way of resolving disputes, especially content disputes, here has tended to be to wait until the opposing party has done something wrong, and then seize on it to get rid of them, without the need to address the real issue. It'a a manner of proceeding which does us the highest degree of discredit. This is one of the most absurdly exaggerated examples I have seen here. In this case, it's based not about a specific content issue, but an general one about the way of improving Wikipedia. The people opposing the Col are, for the most part, people who have dedicated themselves to improving Wikipedia by removing articles, some in a less reasonable manner than others. The Col takes the other approach entirely--of rescuing whatever can possibly be rescued, and he does it by rewriting and sourcing articles. This method of preventing deletion is indeed impossible to answer,for if one fixes an article enough, neutral people almost always !vote to keep it. It therefore should not surprise me that those who are frustrated by his success might seek to stop him.

with regards to some comments above: I supported A Nobody because I basically agreed with what he was trying to do. Unfortunately, he adopted for some reason I have never understood a very peculiar way of discussing things at inordinate length, with excessive repetition, and an affected style. This style not unreasonable annoyed a great many people of all persuasions and eventually made it impossible to defend him,and, beyond a certain point, I did not do so. The col, however, works for the most part in an entirely beneficial manner, and will be much easier to defend. There is no reason why anyone except the zealots should oppose him. He is not perfect, and the one charge against him that is correct is misleading edit summaries. I do not know why he does it, for I doubt they actually mislead anybody. It is not reason for a block, and if sentiment is otherwise, it's reason for a very short one, in order to give the earliest possible opportunity to show improvement. I therefore suggest shortening the block to time served. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this is nothing to do with disagreeing with a user's opinion. It's how the opinion is presented and forced into articles in a disruptive manner. It's nothing about bullying - victims of bullying do nothing to attract the bully, and yet Colonel Warden frequents AFDs and votes to keep pretty much everything, and has on several occasion made several disruptive actions which cannot be seen as good faith. That is not a sign of innocence. It's easy to play the bully card, but your understanding of what bullying is, is flawed. I'ts nothing at all to do with stopping his "success" - it's stopping his disruptive editing. It does not surprise me to see inclusionists supporting his disruptive behaviour. As I don't believe in having agendas on Wikipedia, I look at every article objectively so I cannot be considered a deletionist - or as you might believe, an "enemy" of Colonel - so it's not like it's people getting their revenge. Really he has had numerous opportunities to show improvement and has completely failed to, so what makes him so special that he is above the rules? AD 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to press one or two admins of my acquaintance to consider whether they would unblock this editor on the condition that he await the outcome of an RFC on his conduct before resuming his contributions at AfD, his work on redirects, and his use of tags on articles. To my mind none of this conduct is actually disruptive, but I recognize that it is widely considered (at least in this discussion) to be "the wrong way to act." If this fellow is really so disruptive, perhaps it should be made more apparent to those of us who would otherwise actually think the chap might be making legitimate and even beneficial edits. --TS 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

He's already unblocked, but regardless it's safe to say that you don't seem to be understanding the concerns here. AD 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much why I didn't want to see this editor hided off to hell for allegedly engaging in the kind of editing I assume is quite in order on Wikipedia. I don't understand what the problem is, and I want to see it explained. --TS 01:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In light of multiple, reasoned opinions that an RFC/U is the proper place to establish patterns of editing and appropriate expectations and restrictions, I have unblocked Colonel Warden. While the consensus is clear here that blocking was not incorrect, I do not believe that leaving Colonel Warden blocked for the duration of a drawn-out discussion is warranted. An RFC/U, incorporating the discussion from this ANI thread so far, seems to be the proper venue going forward.
At the same time, I'm interested in stepping out of this particular case. I would rather that someone else could start the RFC/U and proceed from here. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jclemens. You've done a good job here to get the ball rolling. AD 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a shame. It's pretty clear from CW's talk page that he does not understand how wrong his behaviour is. If that's willful, that's one problem, if it's due to real lack of comprehension, it's another. I don't see anything that happened between the block being made and the block being lifted that signals that any meaningful change will occur.—Kww(talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you unblocked, but at the same time I'm disappointed to see that CW's regular tactic of just waiting it out and letting the pressure build has worked. Throughout all of the warnings and ANI threads, we still have not seen an acknowledgement from CW that there is a problem, or that he is aware that he's doing something wrong. I would have hoped for that to be a minimum prerequisite for an unblock. If anything, the comments on his talk page have shown that he believes there is no problem at all. While I tire of the drama related to this, I am not ready to let this go. I will start a draft RFC/U on a user subpage. Anyone is free to edit it before I post it. SnottyWong ^verbalize 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When you've got supposedly reliable admins like DGG verging on personal attacks with "There is no reason why anyone except the zealots should oppose him", what else do you expect? I hope this - which is effectively enabling disruption - will certainly be brought up in the RFCU. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I weighed that, Snottywong. If Colonel Warden edits in a manner inconsistent with best practices at this point, someone else can block him. I'm pretty thick skinned, and I'm OK with the abuse I've taken to date, but it's really time for someone else to take over. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is expected; I outlined this on your talk page, yesterday. I do thank you for your overall approach. I expect to certify or endorse whatever emerges; TBD, of course, and I'll certainly opine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, another disruptive user pointlessly moved to RfC/U. ANI is the exact spot to discuss a disruptive user. From a rough look there was a significant majority supporting the block. You've done nothing to curb his behaviour by doing this and only further enabled him to continue it. He now knows that even with a majority of people supporting him being blocked the blocking admin will just turn around and unblock him. Bravo. RfC/U is non-binding and does nothing to serve the community in this instance.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the RFC? I've been shown a draft linked from somebody's talk page, but it looked like a joke. Where is the RFC? Presumably the evidence is easy to come by. Put it on a page and let's look at it. --TS 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How dare the RfC not be filed immediately! Clearly not having this filed less than 12 hours after the unblock occurred means none of the complaints are valid. True many people in the US are gearing up for a major holiday, but that just proves even further how baseless all of these complaints are. Thanks goodness we have Tony Sidaway here making such helpful comments. AniMate 01:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty sickening to see a bunch of minor issues blown up by the mob like this. Can't you just accept that some inclusionists are going to edit Wikipedia alongside you deletionists? Fences&Windows 02:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I know eh? I refuse to go anywhere near deletion debates unless absolutely necessary after I see the way those things degenerate so quickly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, the Evil Scary Kitten-Eating Deletionist Legion of Doom can't accept that at all. We think all disagreement with our mission to destroy the universe and kick puppies is disruptive and so we constantly drag all outspoken inclusionists to ANI on trumped up charges. Why, just look at all the ANI threads concerning, say, DGG or Milowent or Silver Seren. Mwaaaahahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Oh, wait... Seriously, though, I don't accept that people who lie in edit summaries, fake sources, and obstruct cleanup efforts by removing maintenance tags without fixing the problems, are going to edit Wikipedia alongside other users who act in good faith. Attempting to excuse this kind of thing by trying to paint it as an ideological dispute is missing the point and not very helpful. If it was just this one thing, I would agree with you that it's making a mountain out of a molehill. But this is just the last incident in a history of dodgy behaviour going back at least two years. Reyk _YO! 03:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

it's very easy to find low quality work in those who oppose us, and I suppose it's inevitable that everyone is more concerned with that, and tends to pass over similar in those who support us. I do not want to start a comparative list of who does things worst, that's not a way forward. I personally decided some time ago that I would be very reluctant to initiate an action against anyone for this sort of thing, no matter what I think of them & I never have done so; the odds of overall benefit are much too low. What is a way forward in our inclusionism discussions, is for more people to actually participate in AfDs. If it is left to the people who are passionate about the subject of the article, as usually happens, or who are trying to express a general view or make a point, we're not likely to get as good decisions as from a non-committed jury-like attitude. If additional uncommitted people don't step in, we're going round in circles.

I've seen a pattern to our discussions here: first, someone brings up a long standing problem; then, a number of people join in and suggest overly drastic punishment and then supporters then suggest awarding a medal and punishing the other side for daring to complain. finally, usually, we either decide on something moderate, or people actually change their behavior. Perhaps we could skip the middle two steps. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a better solution. How about this: whenever someone makes a complaint on your user page about your behavior or editing patterns, and multiple editors and admins voice their agreement with that complaint, then you should immediately acknowledge that you've made a mistake, and genuinely resolve to discontinue the offending behavior. Had that happened a week or two ago, none of this would have been necessary. Everyone is so quick to judge and blame the people who brought this to ANI for the drama that you've forgotten all about the root cause of the problem, Colonel Warden. Unless, of course, you think it would be better for editors to stand by and watch a disruptive editor damage article after article, turning a blind eye and not lifting a finger to do anything about it. I request that this discussion be closed, as the RFC/U will likely be posted within the next 24 hours. SnottyWong ^speak 06:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor, User:DrMicro has contributed a number of articles on obscure species of microorganisms--very useful. It now appears there may be a lot of WP:OR in these articles, which will have to be checked.

Right now, though, he insists that the Plasmodium article's taxobox must include a list of 274 species. Other editors, including myself, have tried to remove this list and put it in the article, but, for various, endless arguments, DrMicro insists the list can only be in the taxobox, not in the article, not in another article, nowhere but the taxobox.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] We have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page.[44]

He is now engaged in battles on OR, admitting his subgenus assignments are OR, which means they must be checked (see talk page link).[45]

This is not just a 3RR issue, it includes time needed to research and edit the list elsewhere without being accused by DrMicro of vandalism for moving the list from taxobox.[46][47][48][49][50] (It appears that 3 of these are not accusations, but mistakes, so this long list here might include only 1 or 2 actual such accusations, but also the accusations in edit summaries on the article as linked above.)

Can one level headed administrator assist in this matter? Protecting the article with the 274 species in the taxobox will not be helpful, as long lists of 100s of items are not the purpose of an information box on wikipedia. What would be helpful would be an attempt to ask DrMicro to simply stop editing the article for long enough for other editors to create a list in the article or elsewhere and investigate his OR on subgenera. The latter will require access to a research library. I am glad to do it, but not in the midst of being accused of vandalism for trying to make the taxobox readable. I think if he backed off for long enough for others to do any work, he would see that the list of 274 species can be located in a useful manner without being in the taxobox. However, this can't be demonstrated against his single-mindedness to maintain it only in the taxobox.

If it is reasonable to request the intervention of a single level headed administrator and one such person volunteers, please work on the article talk page or the user talk page as appropriate. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a clear warning to DrMicro, and I am now watching the page. Since it is clear that the issue has been extensively discussed and DrMicro's position is isolated (as well as unreasonable), I will respond to any further revert-warring with a suitable block. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering. I think your initial warning and monitoring will be sufficient result from this AN/I request. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest protecting the page for say 2 weeks without fear for the wrong version, and have people work it out. I am willing to assist with this discussion. I think the Drosophila article is an good example of how it can be solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am against protecting the wrong version because of the importance of this article and because the additional text in the taxobox crashes my (not-too)smartphone's browser. Still, if it amounts to that, there's not that great an inconvenience. I do like the Drosophila article, also. Please feel free to suggest it on the talk page, if you have not already. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:184.74.22.161 is not careful with WP:V or WP:UNDUE. Adds material from sites like www.lifesitenews.com and catholic.com [51], quotes bunch of people without specifying why they are significant (same diff), gives too much space to a non-significant person disagreeing with entire scientific organizations [52]. This behaviour repeats itself in articles like Same-sex marriage, Same-sex marriage and the family.Phoenix of9 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to warrant an AN/I discussion; furthermore, note that the IP is engaging in discussion and is attempting to address your concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:184.74.22.161 appears to be doing their best to solve this dispute. They have even indicated their willingness to remove information they have added simply to satisfy another user (User:Phoenix_of9) here. I see no problem with their behaviour, if this is the concern at hand. Tomayres (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep adding violent Christian material, this is a problem. See the section below. Phoenix of9 02:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I do not 'keep' doing anything. I have responded to your second ANI below. Tomayres (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Explanation by Ssilvers is accepted Mjroots (talk)

I'm raising the issue of editing to the Ellen Terry article by Ssilvers (talk · contribs) here as this editor seems to be saying one thing and then doing the opposite.

I added the {{Tenterden}} template to the article at 18:51 yesterday. Ssilvers removed it at 21:48 as a "tangentially related navbox". Terry lived in Tenterden for 28 years, so the template is hardly tangentially related and the Ellen Terry article is linked on the template. I reverted the removal at 21:48, with an explanation for this in my edit summary. I also explained the reversion at 22:00 on the article's talk page. I also notified Ssilvers of the revert at 22:02, which he removed at 22:03 with an edit summary stating that he was fine with the revert.

At 22:13, Ssilvers removed the template again, yet made no mention of the removal in his edit summary. I'm making no comment on the rest of that edit, but the removal of the template after stating that he was fine with it and with a false edit summary is bordering on disruptive editing or a ownership issue. I've readded the template, and stand by my edit summary.

Apart from discussing the issue, which I have attempted to do without success, is there anything else I can do apart from raising the issue here? I'm unable to take any administrative action myself as I'm involved in the issue, but I will state that I don't believe that this is a blocking issue at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I am mystified by that edit I made. I must have mistakenly gone back to a much earlier version of the article by mistake. I certainly did not intend to delete all that text, images, etc. While it is true that I deleted the insertion by Mjroots of the {{Tenterden}} template earlier in the day (and don't think it should go in the article), I did not intend to delete it a second time, so sorry about that Mjroots. I was going to leave it there, although now that we're here, what do other people think about that? Anyhow, I think I have now restored the article and included the most important edits made by a third editor today. Any comments or further corrections are welcome. Best regards, and again, sorry for my sloppiness. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, explanation and apology accepted. Let's close this and move on. Mjroots (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see that I had been reviewing edits back in October 2009 and mistakenly edited that version instead of the new version. Again, sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would still be interested in any experienced editor's take on this navbox and the ones referenced on my talk page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please move to File talk:4chan front page 2010.png

 – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can some administrator please delete the version of this image that I've just reverted away from? It is being used for 4chan-related lameness. Also, it would be nice to protect the non-lame version, since otherwise this is going to recur. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? It was recently changed by a user who has been here for 6 months, and has had nothing but good-faith edits. Have you tried conversing with that user and asking them why they changed the picture? WP:AGF could be used here. --Jayron32 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The fundraiser banner seems to be in the image. --Bsadowski1 07:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you notify AndrewN of this section? It appears not. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have carefully not implied that there is any problem with the user who uploaded the image. However, the image in question deliberately misuses WMF imagery, and regardless of the uploader's intentions 4chan itself is currently full of posters chortling gleefully at the prospects implied by the image. I will notify the uploader, but that image is a terrible idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have full-protected the image for 3 months. There is a reason why we have a neutral picture of that image on the 4chan page. I know it sounds COI-ish, but having Jimbo's picture on the 4chan article brings forth more issues as far as WP:BLP issues on the Jimmy Wales article; the inclusion of that is clearly intended to slam him in light of the current WMF fundraising campaign. –MuZemike 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad block due to excessive length (it needs immediate protection to prevent the drama llama coming to town, and to allow for content discussion to occur), and subverts the possibility consensus discussion on the File:'s talk page, a page which could be well used by most of the people here as this appears to be a content dispute, see the characterisation of the File upload as "vandalism". Fifelfoo (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind it being lifted at any time, provided there is a consensus to do so. I do not want a revert-war over images to occur, which it was clear to me that this was imminent. There is no talk page discussion being prohibited, unless you think the lack of drama is prohibitiing that. –MuZemike 08:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: I think User:AndrewN acted in good faith - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I admittedly did originally think it was vandalism, although after looking at the uploader I no longer think so. I'm afraid I can't change the edit summary, so you'll have to take my word for it. Meanwhile, however, it is not a "content dispute" - the image version that was uploaded recently has content directly aimed at Wikipedia in it, and the previous, neutral version does not. The recent screenshot is, again, just a really bad idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to MuZemike: no worries, I'll contact you if any changes occurs. My main concern is the licensing status of the banner image, as to whether the banner's use on 4chan is licensed or simply parody fair use. I think the variance between the prior and current versions displays something previously not displayed in the fair use image: server level enforced parody structures, such as text filters or "party hats". In reply to Gavia immer, that sounds like a desire to censor external content because you don't like it. As regards the image's neutral depiction of its subject, see the content point immediately prior. Can you point to policy reasons for your belief this isn't a content dispute? "An external party is critical of wikipedia by parody" does not seem to be adequate to describe this as anything more than a disagreement over content. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "neutral depiction of its subject", is my point - we had one of those. The problem image was uploaded specifically to show the subject taking a jab at Jimbo etc., and is not neutral. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint is a content complaint. Your belief is that an image of 4chan does not neutrally depict 4chan because it does not neutrally depict Jimbo. I would suggest that there is a flaw in your argument. I suggest you take your content argument to the file's talk page and seek to build consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend following Fifelfoo's recommendation there, which is the main rationale behind the protection. (We do have a content dispute here, which needs to be handled.) Please discuss there or, if absolutely need be, on Talk:4chan, whichever is the best place. –MuZemike 08:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a clarification, the technical issue is that in some (rare) cases an edit conflict is not reported as such, so saving a talk page will remove some recent post/edit without warning. Probably some sort of race condition. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Would someone remove this and delete it from the history? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see that as offensive enough to for revision deletion. TNXMan 14:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)