Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236

Redirects with non-breaking spaces (or strange accents?)

At Redirects for creation, redirects from the pinyin spellings Bù​liǎo​ qíng and Bù​ liǎo​ qíng to Bu liao qing were requested. The request seemed reasonable to me, but I cannot create them because the titles supposedly contain "a non-breaking space or other unusual space character" (presumably it's the accented "a" that's the problem; for all I can tell the space is just an ordinary space). The error message said I should raise the issue at this noticeboard. Could an admin create the redirects? Huon (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, both of those do contain disallowed characters and should not be created. I can create redirects without the invalid characters for you. 28bytes (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've moved these redirects to Bùliǎo qíng and Bù liǎo qíng, respectively. These look identical to the ones requested, but do not contain the hidden embedded characters that no one is likely to type. For future reference, if you see %E2%80%8B anyplace in the address bar, that's the blacklisted character; remove that and you should be able to create the redirect without admin assistance. 28bytes (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that and fixing it. I thought it was simply the diacritics that were causing the problem, and didn't notice the hidden characters.  :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I wouldn't have noticed myself if I hadn't stumbled across this list a while back. 28bytes (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: if the blacklist tells you exactly what's wrong ("an non-breaking space or other unusual space character"), it's usually right. If it's vague or says nothing, it's usually a false positive. --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware we had such a list, and now don't understand why we do. Glancing at it, it is not obvious to me why those characters would be banned. If it's a valid way of spelling something, shouldn't people be able to search for it. Maybe someone comes across the unusual character (in a word or name) in text somewhere, and does a copy-and-paste to our search bar to learn more. Someone please explain to me why they shouldn't get a valid result. LadyofShalott 08:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There is already a redirect at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%8B. The problem would not be for redirects so much as article forks, that look like the real named article but have a different point of view from the original. You could imagine any number of controversial topics where someone would like their own version of a topic up here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The "unusual spaces" are banned because they are visually indistinguishable from an ordinary space character, but lead to different article titles (note that there are two redlinks in the original post, and two visually-identical bluelinks in 28bytes' reply). The blacklist entries are there to prevent confusion. --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To expand on what Carnildo said, the problem with allowing these hidden embedded characters is that maintenance becomes a nightmare. Instead of just an Alexander Hamilton article, we could then have an Alex​ander Hamilton article, an Alexander Hamil​ton article, and a practically infinite number of other visually identical articles. The current situation, with the blacklist in place, is that if someone copies Alexander Hamil​ton from a Word document and pastes it in the search bar, they'll get a "Did you mean Alexander Hamilton?" prompt. If we take these characters off the blacklist, they'll get a chance to create Alexander Hamil​ton, which they just might do, since any decent encyclopedia should have an article on the guy. People inadvertently did this a fair amount before the blacklist was in place; I think it's good they no longer can. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the responses. Much of my original question still remains though: if someone happens upon the name somewhere and does a copy-and-paste of it to our search bar, we are preventing them from getting a valid response. None of you have addressed why that is acceptable. The content fork problem could be dealt with using protected redirects. LadyofShalott 22:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I concede. LadyofShalott 22:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#XfD_Topic_Ban_for_User:TenPoundHammer

 – Nobody Ent 21:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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

---

User:TenPoundHammer has recently been admonished by an RFC/U for his conduct in AfD's. Today he posted a notification on Sandstein's talk page noting that Sandstein had closed two recent AfD's (both were deleted, as was obvious from the redlinks) seeking the closure of three additional related AfD's. This poses a couple of problems:

• Sandstein had already commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic) (3rd nomination) before TenPoundHammer posted the comment. Thus, TPH knew or should have known that Sandstein had an opinion on at least one of these three AfDs. Combine this with the explicit reference to two other Webcomics that TPH had AfD'ed and Sandstein had deleted, this is clearly a Biased and/or Partisan message within the scope of WP:CANVASS.
• Given the recently-closed RFC/U, this bodes exceptionally ill, since TPH is still revisiting AfD's where he didn't get his way (that is, deletion) the first time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (webcomic).

Overall, it is unfortunately clear to me that TenPoundHammer has not taken the RFC/U's advice under advisement: he clearly appears more interested in winning than conducting the deletion process with integrity.

Note specificially that I am neither contesting the contents or closure of any of the deletion discussions, in which I have not participated, nor accusing Sandstein of any impropriety whatsoever. This is about TenPoundHammer, not Sandstein's closes or conduct.

Thus, I'm proposing that User:TenPoundHammer is topic banned from all XfD processes, broadly construed, for six months in order to preserve the integrity of the process in the face of such abuses. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• We generally don't just propose topic bans at ANI before discussing it first, as there may be other considerations or remedies available should the consensus decide that there is a problem. As that consensus hasn't developed, I find this a bit premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC) As Nobody Ent has moved this to AN, this point is moot. Striking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've notified Sanstein about this ANI. Since he is central to the discussion, I believe this is proper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I think the RFC/U, which was open quite long and quite recently, was enough discussion that I felt comfortable jumping to a concrete proposal for discussion. Others may differ, but at least it's a clear starting point: I'm not asking for a block or a "please don't do that again"; I believe a topic ban is the best way forward. While I disagree that Sandstein is "central" to this discussion, I agree that you're right to notify him that he's been mentioned, and apologize for neglecting to do that myself. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. TPH has, for years, been... unwilling to listen when it comes to XfDs, to slow down, to stop shrieking his head off demanding closures as soon as the clock ticks, etc etc. While his core intentions are probably good, his execution is poor (to say the least), and thus banning him from XfD for a while would probably be good for him, and save other people a lot of recurring headaches. → ROUX ₪ 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with at least the Dominic Deegan and 1/0 AFDs. Both were closed as "no consensus" several years ago. I renominated the others because I felt their past AFDs did not address the issues of reliable sources — everyone was all "keep because it won an award", but far more AFDs have proven that said award is not notable. If you're hinging your keep entirely on a flimsy reasoning, does the AFD not require a second look? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unfuckingbelievable Support. Didn't you get it last week? What a senseless waste. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Profanity doesn't help your case. Your comment seems rather tendentious. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it does. It takes a heck of a lot to get me so pissed off that I need to curse, and everybody knows that. I do not believe you're blowing your nose on the community after both the RFC and last week's AN/ANI report. An absolute insult to anyone who supported you last time, and any previous times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again. How is "renominate because the last AFD from SEVERAL YEARS AGO had flawed reasoning and/or was closed as no consensus" detrimental? I see nothing wrong with renominating because the AFD had nothing but WP:ITSNOTABLE or "It won an award that 47 other AFDs have proven is not enough to meet WP:WEB". If it were renominations like, 2 days later, I'd understand, but these are two YEARS later. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• If I had my pee-pee slapped twice in the last month regarding AFD nominations, I'd be wise enough to have stayed away from AFD nominations voluntarily. The first was a warning to cut it out, the second should have been your introduction to voluntary recusal, this one should have been un-necessary (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in the RFC/U about TPH admin shopping, and I don't see JClemens discussing the issue on TPH talk page before opening an ANI.Nobody Ent 10:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Why would I be banned from all XFDs? What have I done wrong in CFD, TFD, MFD? Hell, how is "renominating after the last AFD was closed due to faulty reasoning or no consensus" a bad thing? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hammer, I think this is part of the problem, that you don't see what many have seen, and many more of us have overlooked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• A renomination of something from several years ago — I'm not seeing how that is wrong. Just tell me how THAT is wrong. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A single renomination of something discussed several years ago is not a problem. A pattern of multiple renominations from things YOU nominated years ago is BATTLEGROUND behavior--it gives the impression you never let anything go, and will continue to bring up such things until they get deleted. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• If there were thousands of examples, or evidence of a clear and constant pattern (for example if TPH re-nominated everything he'd ever nominated again every three months), then I'd agree with you. But the leap from 3 re-nominations, 2 of which were no-consensus the first time and all of which are years old, to "you never let anything go" is ridiculous and veering rather closely into a personal attack. You aren't at all coming off well in this discussion, Jclemens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support; I have to say, looking at the issues and Bwilkins comment above, I must support. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support and it breaks my heart to have to do it. I really like you Hammer, and I've defended you more than once. I believe you when you say that you don't get it, as your actions seem perfectly fine to you but not to everyone else. Even when taking up for you, I have to wince a little, but I can't this time. You are too aggressive with deletions, period. You need to take the time, reevaluate your methods and develop some new ones here. You come across like a pit bull in regards to deletions, and I would rather see them put you on a leash than put you down, old friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Will you just answer the question I've asked 14 times in this discussion?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You push the limits in every way Hammer. You shouldn't have went to Sandstein's page, you seem obsessed with deleting, and it is disruptive and bad for Wikipedia. You need a break, for your own good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, one canvassing is all I need to be burnt at the stake huh? In my book it's not canvassing unless you say "hey, go !vote delete for me here". Which is not the same thing as "You were in this AFD, here's a related one I'd like you to look at". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I, and a substantial number of others, disagree. Sandstein deleted the stuff you wanted deleted, voted delete in another AfD, and you wanted him to close more AfDs? Do you not understand how, even if he'd been scrupulously appropriate in handling the rest of the discussions, it would have created the appearance of impropriety? Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see evidence of wrongdoing here. Frankly, there's a LOT of articles that would have passed an AFD in 2008 (or 2007, or 2009, etc.) that wouldn't pass now due to our increased and ever-increasing focus on verifiable information from reliable sources. WP:CCC and all that. Besides, if TPH is punished for renominating an article for AFD after several years, which isn't against any rule that I know of, what about users who keep going back to DRV with the same articles month after month? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• THANK YOU. I said that five times already and no one will listen. WHAT IS WRONG with renominating after a several year gap? Several YEARS, folks, not days. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment Neither oppose nor support, because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the situation. I'm disturbed by the proposer's objection to renomination of old AFDs — when it's been years since an AFD (especially when it ended with a no-consensus close), it's not disruptive to renominate it. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Listen to Nyttend, people. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose With great respect for everyone involved as I don't see the message TPH left on S's talk page to be a technical violation of WP:CANVASS, as it is neither Mass posting NOR Biased NOR Partisan NOR Secret. I accept that there is a perception of an issue related to the recent RFC/U, and I can offer no comment in that regard. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The nominator makes the point that the message could be described as Partisan. I still oppose, as the issue of renominating old AfDs does not seem to be contrary to policy. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am honestly at a loss why this campaign against Mr. Hammer is being conducted. There was an RFC on his conduct at AfD, which resulted in no consensus and no action — with those bringing the case having failed miserably to prove disruption, trolling, or a failure to abide by policy. Just as soon as that closed, his opponents had him back at ANI with a similar whine-a-thon — and that ended up scrolling off the page without an administrator even taking the time to close the pointless, directionless rehash of a discussion. But it's not the lack of merit behind their failed efforts to burn Mr. Hammer that matters to his foes, I suppose, it's just keeping that User Name "in the news" so that they can move for the kill. NOW the other shoe drops — having failed not once but twice to prove disruption, they move for a massive six month topic ban based on................ nothing! This is asinine! I have a very different perspective towards where the keep/delete lines should be drawn than Mr. Hammer does, but he is NOT disruptive of the process and he SHOULD have a right to attempt to advance his perspective without being bullied by those who disagree with him. THERE IS NO WRONGDOING PROVEN against Mr. Hammer, how can he "disregard" or "not take seriously" failed bureaucratic actions against him? But the pitchfork-wielding mob needs their dose of adrenaline, I guess.... Nuts. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and well said. The first few posts here are downright surreal. It's like the basic concept was "Well, the RFC didn't find any wrongdoing, but I really want him banned, real bad. Maybe if I write up an ANI post that kinda sounds like he did something wrong, nobody will notice that he actually didn't." And the really crazy part is that it actually worked on a few people who really should have known better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah man, but, dude, you're just another deletionist, man. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose: I see nothing wrong with the renominations listed above BUT the message on Sandstein's talk page is less than neutral and not to be condoned. J04n(talk page) 22:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose/Support blah, blah, blah who gives a f***. Grow up. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia instead of all this diva crap.  Tigerboy1966  22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Based on the lack of any conclusions from the RFC/U and the ANI on TPH's actions last week, while TPH may be pushing good faith, there needs to be a lot more here to insist on a block as admin action. As Nyytend pointed out, renom'ing at AFD articles after a couple years is completely reasonable, particularly since TPH has argued that something changed (the contribution of awards like Ursa Major towards notability) instead of just restarting a IDONTLIKEIT-type argument. Yes, trout to TPH to work a bit less aggressively towards these ends (such as opening a discussion at web comics project to try to resolve the issue beforehand), but stuff like that is neither required or demanded by any policy/guideline - TPH is using valid processes to challenge articles he believes aren't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andrew Lenahan. I object to banning someone when one of the reason is "renominating an article that was nominated years before" and for treating WP:BEFORE as if it is a policy. That said, canvassing is to be avoided, and not all AFDs were well chosen. A trout is more appropriate than a ban. But the RFC/U was not the open and shut case that the OP here states it to have been. . Edison (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I admit I could've phrased my comments to Sandstein a little more neutrally, but I still don't think it's canvassing unless you outright tell someone to !vote a certain way. I was not asking Sandstein to !vote "delete" in the AFDs — just asking him to weigh in since he'd handled AFDs on similar topics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not familiar with TPH and AfDs in general but, in isolation, I don't see the message on Sandstein's page as problematic. I've had editors ask me not to take admin action on particular articles because they think they know which way I'll read consensus (they are usually wrong) and that's just a normal business practice. No admin is obliged to act on a user request. --regentspark (comment) 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

if you think of this as normal business practice for an admin, I really wonder. I cannot imagine responding to such as request, and I find it hard to imagine anyone who knew the way we work here would ask me; I don't think anyone ever has. Even given that TPH is a zealot, I wouldn't have expected it of him either. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- 6 months is far too long. Consider limiting quantity to single nomination or one consolidated definitely related set per listing period through 30 June. Dru of Id (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen worse than 'You close discussions about topic X; editor Y is doing Z.' Dru of Id (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I raised the RFC/U/. I'd like to see this topic ban - but not for this reason. This is just nit-picking over the letter of policy, not principles, and we shouldn't work that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I cannot endorse such a long topic ban at this time. In this thread I suggested some restrictions that seemed to me to meet most of the concerns raised without being unduly burdensome. Bovlb (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Suggest (noting the substantial opposition to an actual XfD ban) a 3 month strict probation regarding his behaviour at XfDs, including a ban on any solicitication of anyone at all in any regard to any XfDs, as well as a bar on him engaging in any of the behaviours which were rightly noted at the RFC/U. Collect (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me give you a concrete example of why this isn't a desirable outcome. Mr. Hammer and I were recently on opposite sides of an AfD debate — we disagree probably 90% of the time when we're both chiming in on the same thing, it's nothing new. The piece was an unsourced thing on a Portuguese folk dance. I basically used a lot of words to make an IAR defense — which, as AfD regulars know, is effective very infrequently. Mr. Hammer wants to see sources or it should be gone, my perspective: hang loose, sources are out there, WP is better with an unsourced stub about a real thing than without it. Mr. Hammer popped onto my talk page politely calling me out — "so how do you propose we source this out if there are no sources." It got me reengaged in the debate, and it was healthy. I don't recall or care all that much about the ultimate outcome, the point is that for AfD to work properly it needs to be a place where honest debate can happen, where different ideas can contend and where consensus can emerge. If Mr. Hammer was subject to a "strict probation," his calling out my (to him) fuzzy logic would never have happened and the process would have been stilted.

TPH certainly has a way to lessen the stress level of all, in my opinion, which is by being very serious about following WP:BEFORE and when he finds a huge web footprint for a subject — even if they are all so-called "unreliable sources" floating to the top of Google — to stop being quite so fired up to charge on to AfD, but to rather tag the piece for sources without making a deletion challenge. But that's my opinion and he's a principled deletionist. That's life, not everybody agrees about everything always. But here's the point: Mr. Hammer is a dedicated AfD regular, that is a primary form of his volunteer work in support of The Project, and he should not be trashed for doing what he believes is right. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is vastly out of proportion to the outcome of the RfC/U, where there was nothing near a consensus for any ban at all. Renominating AfDs was also covered at the RfC/U, where, again, there was no consensus that there was a problem. As for posting on Sandstein's talk page, that was questionable although I did not see it as canvassing. In any event, proposing a 6 month ban because of that posting is vastly out of proportion to what happened. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst TPH may well be a pitt-bull who requires a leash, this proposal requires a foundation on an incident. An examination of that foundation upon which you have rested your proposal will show those interested that it has insufficient merit at this time. Better to be patient waiting for something satisfactory to come along, rather than a false start like this proposal, which will fail. Penyulap ☏ 23:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The talk page message is rather minor, and isn't worth a topic ban. The AfD's linked in the complaint don't seem inappropriate to me (enough time had elapsed since the previous AfD in each case, or the previous AfD was speedily withdrawn by TPH and therefore doesn't count). I'm not seeing any problem serious enough to warrant a topic ban, particularly not a topic ban which spans all XfD's (as no problem has even been discussed outside of AfD). -Scottywong| express _ 23:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose but only on the ground that one such incident isn't enough. I think we as admins need to issue a very strong warning that this sort of administrator shopping is not acceptable. I think it's pretty outrageous to ask a particular admin to close an AfD in any case, or to ask a particular admin to close any other discussion. One can invite a person --even an admin--to look at an AfD, if there's a good neutral reason for doing so, such as involvement in very similar AfDs, but to suggest any particular action such as closing, is unacceptable. It is particularly wrong to suggest closing, rather than comment: what one comments will be judged by a third person entirely in the context of other comments; if one closes one is doing an individual final action. It can be fine to ask a particular admin whom one happens to know to do something obvious, like deal with a vandal, but not something that is already before the community. (it's not Canvassing and shouldn't be confused with it; it's worse than canvassing, especially as TPH brought the AfD nominations in these articles himself. I consider it not a reason for topic ban, but for blocking; an attempt to pervert community process.) Sandstein, as we would all expect, responded just as he should have. I don't think we need a specific policy against it--it's covered by the general policy on disruption. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a warning about administrator shopping would be appropriate. I'm sure TPH knows he fucked up in that regard. The basic problem is that such shopping (especially by a nominator) makes for an "involved" rather than neutral judge of the debate and fuels a battleground mentality. A warning that a week in the sin bin will occur for a repeat performance, with escalating blocks thereafter for the identical offense, would seem appropriate. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I was looking that the totality of problems since the RFC/U, and the canvassing was the icing on the cake. I'm still shocked that he wouldn't just voluntarily pull back on XfD for a while and review his actions more. I genuinely like Hammer, and I'm afraid he is going to be in for a rougher time down the road if the brakes aren't applied here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Not for this. Although it would probably be best for everyone if TPH decided to take a voluntary n month break from XfD. —Ruud 00:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose TPH concerns me, but this concerns me more. If the community comes to the consensus that something needs to be done, I'd be willing to act as a gatekeeper, approving TPH's nominations before they go live. I don't think anyone would be concerned that I would stand in the way of valid nominations, and I don't have a reputation for frivolous nominations, either.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that TPH should take a voluntary break from AfDs for a while, but this doesn't justify a ban from them. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Logical Cowboy's comment. It seems out of proportion and overdone. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as out of proportion, which strikes me as a good term to use. DGG's comment, though, is worth taking in. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support TPH has in my experience a tendency to stretch policies and ignore certain aspects that he finds inconvenient. In this discussion he has been arguing that if his message is worded neutrally it isn't canvassing, which rather ignores the issue that a neutral message to a partisan audience is canvassing. Suggesting that a particular admin who has closed similar close AFDs in a way TPH approved of should close particular AFDs is canvassing, and the neutrality of the phrasing is irrelevant, as is the issue of whether that admin would actually have agreed with TPH, the issue is that TPH was trying to pick an admin who was likely to close the AFD in a particular way. I'm sure that if one of my fellow Article Rescue Squadron members had asked me to close those AFDs TPH would consider it canvassing regardless of the neutrality of the phrasing. A 6 month or even a three month break from the deletion process would give TPH time to get more involved in other aspects of the project, and hopefully get a little more perspective on the situation. ϢereSpielChequers 06:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per much of the above. (My personal experience, going back years, is that TPH treats AFD like gambling: "Let's see who shows up for this nom, maybe we'll get this one deleted. If not, I can always say I was just looking for a discussion." )(And yes, please tell me I'm not presuming good faith so I can point to a clear section of that page.) I also hope that whoever closes this takes into account those opposers who claim to agree with the sanction, but only differ in what the duration of the sanction should be. We can always say the sanction starts immediately, and then have a follow up RfC to determine how long the sanction should be. - jc37 08:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. While I might have supported a ban of short duration against initiating a deletion discussion, an all encompassing ban is unsupportable by me. My76Strat (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ridiculous molehill Are admins Wikipedia stormtroopers whose will can be so easily bent? These are the articles you seek said Obi-Wan-Hammer... Nobody Ent 10:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-English articles

Hi. Whilst on new article patrol I've come across articles written in languages other than English several times, but I'm never sure what to do with them. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the proper course of action is? Take this article as an example (likely to be deleted under A10 soon, but I guess you guys can see it anyway). Thanks Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPP#Dealing with foreign language new pages. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Tag them with {{notenglish}}, follow the instructions in the template to list it at WP:PNT, and if you can make sense of the google translation then tag it for speedy deletion/prod/afd or redirect it if it meets a criteria--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And if it was copied from another language wiki, tag it A2 (I've only had occasion to do it once, it was a town article copied and pasted from pt.wiki, so it doesn't happen often). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright question (large blockquotes)

On the page section 69_(sex_position)#History, the entire text is apparently just quoting from a source, Legman 1969, pp. 289-301. I would think that this would be an inappropriate use of the text since the source is presumably still under copyright and rewording to only reference the source is possible. I would greatly appreciate if someone could look at this and determine if copyright problems exist. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That is unacceptable. It's not even info that couldn't be paraphrased. Secretlondon (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for editor Echigo mole

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

---

Nobody Ent 02:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I now propose a community ban proposal for Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since 2011, he's been repeatedly creating sockpuppets as per here to evade his block over a 1 year period, and It appears that he's just egregiously trolling, disrupting lots of Arbcom cases, and to many, he's just another disruptive troll and nuisance on this project. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Due to the nominator of this ban.
• Support on procedural grounds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but Echigo has been indeffed. As I understand it, an indefinite block is more "effective" than a ban. See WP:BP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• You are, but that's ok :) Banning doesn't change the fact that he is indef blocked as well. Banning means the person is no longer part of the community (indef blocked people still are). See WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Unofficially, banning offers more teeth in reverting and dealing with the user. A single admin can't undo a ban, only a block. And there is the statement part of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Just to let you know, this is the seventh time I am reporting an editor on ANI to get them banned. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   01:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is nuts, these constant ban votes for editors that have been indef blocked forever are 100% pointless. And no, it isn't that I don't understand the difference, it is that banning Echo-whoever, and all the other trolls and puppeteers and vandals, isn't going to change one single thing for anyone. No admin was ever going to unblock him unilaterally. No one was ever going to get nailed for reverting him because he wasn't banned. No one considered him part of the community. We're not making any "statement" whatsoever. The only conceivable benefit is the warm glow in the belly from a good 2 minute hate, and we shouldn't be encouraging that. Khvalamde, I will pay you $5, a barnstar, and one free pass to say a rude word to someone here without getting blocked (or, if you are blocked by someone else, I'll unblock you immediately) if you just promise to never bring another ban discussion to this board. Please, I am begging. Stop this ridiculousness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you Buick Century Driver, that's an obvious one I forgot to list. There is no chance that the ban is going to convince them to go away. If anything, it might make them want to stick around to prove the ban is toothless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a somewhat odd statement to make, offering to reward a user with a barnstar to stop making frivolous proposals. While I sympathize with your suffering I question the reasoning of giving community rewards to stop a user from making frivolous proposals. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • Personally I have nothing to gain from this. I surmise that Khvalamde was personally involded and this could be a last resort, but I could care less if Echigo mole comes back and makes good edits. Of course if the activity is vandalisim the best way to stop them is to protect the page they're targeting. Once they know they can't edit the page, they'll probably give up on what they were doing. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • To make sure I'm being clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't ban them because they might become rehabilitated. Semi-protection isn't going to work on serial sockpuppeteers, it would be useless. But so is community banning them. We shouldn't have these votes all the time because they make no difference except to waste time and give a false sense of security. Echo-whatsis (along with the other VFB's here recently) is already defacto banned; there is no benefit to making it a formal ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Though I'm not one to participate in these discussions, I seriously doubt this is going to keep this person away from the site. If efforts were made to steer this person away from his or her disruptive behaviour and they ignored, then there is nothing I can do to avert this person's fate. If not, then I strongly suggest we mitigate the block for 1 year and suggest he or she can return in the future. I also strongly belive that bans should be handled by the arbcom. They're experts in policy and usually wind up giving a fair sanction. Often these bans lead to nothing more than an endless game of cat and mouse with the user and the time it takes to keep them off could have been used to improve articles. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I see absolutley no harm in converting a de facto ban into a concrete one. If there's even a scintilla of a possible benefit in doing so, then it's a good thing. These are people for whom the collective good faith has totally run out, and I see value in the community affirming that -- or, if the proposed ban fails, in the community's realization that there is still some perceived value in keeping the possibility of the editor returning alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • BMK, what scintilla of a possible benefit would that be? What possible benefit is there? I think it's far more likely that being banned gives them more incentive to mess with us. If anything, there is a scintilla of possible harm. The only benefit this thread will bring is the small joy I get from typing the fun not-used-often-enough word "scintilla" multiple times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Floquenbeam: One benefit is that the edits of banned editors can be removed on sight, which is not true of the edits of block-evading indef-blocked users. As for incentive, given his record, Echigo mole already has sufficient incentive to mess with us, ignoring him isn't going to change that, nor is banning him. -- I think Mathsci can confirm that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, banning isn't a death sentence, things can change, community bans can be removed by the community, should there be a change of heart and a sincere demonstration of having turned over a new leaf. There's no particular reason to avoid an appropriate ban simply because it's a more restrive sanction than an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

An indef blocked editor can't make edits, so what good does the revert on sight protocol do?Nobody Ent 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Easier to enforce - editors do not need to spend quite as much time dealing with the disruption caused. As a one-off thing, it's no significant difference, but when it happens often, it can be worthwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Floquenbeam has a good point. Why have a ban or block when said user can very easily step around that? See User:Grundle2600, User:CentristFiasco, and User:Ryan kirkpatrick for good examples of that. --MuZemike 07:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF -- user is already banned (defacto) and Floequenbeam's point is spot on. Nobody Ent 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, not the ban, but the process of seeking a formal confirmation for it just for form's sake. We have a perfectly adequate policy on this: per WP:BAN, users who get themselves indef-blocked and then continue with a persistent pattern of block-evading sock disruption, already are considered de facto banned. The recent fashion of bringing up all these cases for formal reconfirmation of the ban has the effect of watering down this good old rule and spreading the myth that the old principle of "a banned user is any user who no admin would ever want to unblock" somehow is no longer valid. There is no difference between a formally enacted ban and a de facto ban of this sort, except that theoretically the threshold for an admin to try to override it and unblock a user would be lower for the latter type. But in most cases this possibility is remote and any unblock would quickly be overturned with a massive troutslap, so it doesn't really matter. For this reason I basically agree with Floquenbeam. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Personally, I think the opposes are less than convincing as to the merits of whether or not Echigo is considered banned. I am a little more than appalled at the logic that we shouldn't ban or block an user just because they can find a way around it; why bother having useful edits made to the encyclopedia if all the work are inevitably going to be damaged by vandals, tendentious editors, and other users who should not be editing Wikipedia? While I appreciate the frustration regarding why should we necessarily confirm a ban from so long ago just because of some recent socking, that does not really warrant an oppose to this ban because it does nothing more than confuse/complicate matters - an oppose would mean there is some willingness to unblock the user (so a ban is not warranted), while your rationales apparently contradict that as there is no clear support from you regarding the ban itself. If you are getting annoyed with an user unnecessarily bringing up ban discussions on an ongoing basis regarding indef blocked users where official bans are not necessary (in light of the defacto bans), comment on their talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - when too much editor time is unnecessarily being wasted on cleaning up, I am not going to oppose efforts to cut down on that - purely because some admins fail to appreciate the difference this will have on other editors who do not have the luxury of extra buttons. I also don't agree that this is the appropriate discussion for "watering down our normal practices", so I am changing my comment to clarify my support for the ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I tend to think "what's it going to hurt to have a formal confirmation", but FPaS' point about this watering down our normal practices is convincing — this ban won't have a practical benefit and is part of a pattern that's not going in a good direction. Community ban proposals should be for people who aren't already (1) blocked indefinitely, and (2) obviously blocked permanently. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban due to abusive sockpuppetry. And as sick as some people are of seeing ban discussions I'm equally as sick of seeing them endlessly bitching about it. It's been discussed a million times. A community ban requires the consensus of the community to reverse, not just promises to be good to a single administrator. And the entire "de facto" bollocks is an utter debacle as I knew it would be. Every time there is a ban proposal there is this endless bullshit about "de facto this" and "indef is fine, nothing changes with a ban" that. Clearly it is different or there would be no such thing as a "ban", admins would just block people and leave it at that. The fact that ban proposals repeatedly come up indicates that you're not going to get your way and ban proposals will not stop unless you either eliminate the concept of a community ban or you change the way Wikipedia works, namely via discussion and consensus. If you don't want to participate in ban discussions nobody is holding your feet to the fire. But quit derailing every ban discussion with this endless bitching and griping, it is FAR MORE DISRUPTIVE than any ban discussion has ever been. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Floquenbeam. Thanks, Dennis, for the explanation and pointer. Could we make it any more complicated?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What this section fails to address is why the ban was so merited in the first place to result in further measures. To me this seems a case of Double Jeopardy in wanting to provide additional punishments after the fact. And if that is to occur, then in my opinion there should be at least a token analysis of the original discipline so we can assure ourselves that (a) it was warranted, and (b) all possible measures need to be instituted to stop the user. A glance at the diffs provided shows little more than an affinity for Grunsky Matrices (whatever those are). For me to assume more discipline is required I would need to feel assured the original discipline itself was warranted, let alone that more is necessary. To my mind that proof has yet to be presented and without it this would be a hasty, premature, and careless rush to judgment which I will not support. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Break

• Strong support for community ban of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole Echigo mole started out life as A.K.Nole. He has wikihounded me since 2009 first as A.K.Nole and then using the account Quotient group. (On Wikipedia Review, he had the account Greg, if I remember rightly.) At that stage he was unwilling to admit to being an alternative account, but Shell Kinney interceded in 2010, corresponding with him by email, and he admitted to being an alternative account of A.K.Nole and agreed to stop wikihounding me. That promise did not last. He subsequently edited as:

• Taciki Wym (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Holding Ray (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Julian Birdbath (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Zarboublian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

He trolled on arbcom pages using ipsocks in the range 212.183.1.1/16. The edits he made relating to me are catalogued here:

• User:Altmathsci/vodafone

That editing was clarified by the arbitration committee in January 2011, when it was unclear whether these edits were by A.K.Nole or Mikemikev. Elen of the Roads informed me that they were by A.K.Nole and the ip range was blocked for 3 months by Shell Kinney along with the above named sockpuppets. The other sockpuppet accounts can be found on the investigation page and include the following accounts:

• Echigo mole (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Krod Mandoon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• A.B.C.Hawkes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Glenbow Goat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Laura Timmins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Old Crobuzon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Reginald Fortune (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tryphaena (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• William Hickey (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ansatz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Southend sofa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The Wozbongulator (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Since December 2011 they switched from vodaphone to the ip ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16. The diffs of all the edits related to me were described during the current arbcom review. That information was gathered up to 13 April, but there have been about 30 edits since then and several ipsocks blocked by either arbitrators or administrators.

• Edits in the range 94.196.1.1/16 : [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]
• Edits in the range 94.197.1.1/16 [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]

This person follows my edits and pretends to have expert mathematical knowledge (they are barely at a second year undergraduate level in mathematics, probably only have done a course in computer science, and are generally clueless about any mathematics that is graduate level or beyond). They troll on arb com pages, arbcom clerk talk pages and arbitrator talk pages. Instead of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, MuZemike could have attended to the outstanding checkuser case (Krod Mandoon) which Courcelles dealt with by indefinitely blocking the account and removing his trolling edits on the Requests for amendment page. This user has worked out my real life identity and has attempted to out me in various places. Amalthea has suggested that a Long Term Abuse file be prepared for this editor. It would not look very different from the above, but I would be cautious in describing the way in which this wikihounder goes about outing me. I have to be continually vigilant. Having said I would support a community ban, the LTA is more helpful. I do know of one community banned editor who is editing through another account. At the moment it is not worth reporting, since his editing patterns are not disruptive (he has started university in a new location and that I would guess is more suited to his personality). Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Echigo mole/A.K.Nole has now started to troll here (what a surprise).[65][66] But all his edits repeat themselves ad nauseam, each one claiming to be from a new person. Wikipedia does not work like that. The edits are instantly recognizable because of the standard IP ranges used and their dreary repetitive content. WP:DUCK and WP:DENY apply in this case. Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The user's record is appalling. We don't need this kind of disruption. Prioryman (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I looked at the diffs and user's edits[67] briefly and couldn't understand what the issue was. Perhaps you could show more clearly which edits they made originally that were so objectionable? All I saw was a potentially unhealthy interest in discussing esoteric mathematical subjects with you. To convince me the original ban itself was warranted, let alone that more discipline is required, I will need to see specifics as to how they acted rudely. I did not even see where you asked them to stop talking to you, which to me would show this was stalking as you claim. This long list of diffs needs to more concisely pinpoint where abuse occurred for me to acknowledge the original ban was even necessary, let alone a more stringent action. Clearly discipline isn't deterring them anyway so we might as well make sure the original decision was correct rather than making a careless judgment which will only encourage them further to oppose it by suggesting careless injustice. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question. This [68] appears to be by DWaterson (talk · contribs), who registered in 2005. Is Mathsci quite sure that this is another sockpuppet User:Echigo mole? Could we see the SPI please? 94.197.77.227 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC) block evading ipsock's edits struck- comment was restored by blocked ipsock 94.197.34.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a zero missing from the end of the link: [69]. Peter E. James (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as ineffective, and per Floquenbeam. User is already de facto banned. Formalising it as a community ban is a bureaucratic process that provides no additional security or protection and no additional deterrent to the offender. The notion that a community ban would prevent an errant admin from unblocking the user where a de facto ban wouldn't is untested in this instance and is an attempt to protect against a possible outcome that will likely never occur. If an admin unblocks this user unilaterally, then there is a case to discuss a community ban, otherwise this process is needless red-tape time-wasting. I would also suggest Khvalamde refrain from filing these types of requests in future until such time as the distinction between a community and de facto ban becomes necessary (not simply desirable). – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 01:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I wrote a little more carefully. Checkusers such as Amalthea have already suggested that an entry be prepared for Echigo mole at WP:LTA, as I have written. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter Mathsci, the current mob trend here is that ban discussions are annoying, so they're voting oppose to prove a WP:POINT. The truly idiotic thing is that the so called "de facto" ban is now void. Since admins here have now voted in opposition to a ban, it can be argued that an admin may potentially be willing to unblock this serial socker/vandal, and a "de facto" ban is only in effect as long as no admins are willing to unblock. Stupid, stupid people. Instead of some community ban discussions you instead have an administrative mess and endless kb of debate. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that, given the above record, any administrator who unblocked any of the indefinitely blocked accounts would risk being desysopped. Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing more disruption by obvious trolling sockpuppet of Echigo mole - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment It would be as well to be cautious blocking or banning on the unsupported word of just one aggrieved editor. Mathtsci may or may not be correct in his assertions, but the fact remains that no other editor, administrator or arbitrator has supported those claims. In the opposite direction, let us consider User:Mikemikev was community-banned [70] on the strength of IP edits that Mathsci noted as "very likely" Mikemikev, "all my checkuser requests have been confirmed", "the editing style confirms the editor" [oddly, Mathsci noted that the IP was a different location and computer to Mikemike -- how did he know that?]. No SPI or other evidence was presented. Mathsci now rather oddly descrbies this as "it was unclear whether these edits were by A.K.Nole or Mikemikev". He was veryt clear at the time. Sadly, as he admits, he was wrong, and having tagged a whole range of IPs as Mikemikev [71], then had to retag them as A.K.Nole [72], cancel Mikemikev [73] and then again as Echigo Mole [74] (which of the three was it really?). Of course anyone can make a mistake, but this one appears to have led to the wrong person being community-banned. In the opposite direction, Mathsci confidently tagged User:Comicania as A.K.Nole [75] and then decided a few days later that he must be Mikemikev [76] after all. Mathsci is fond of referring to checkusers and arbitrators who have given him special insider information. Indeed, retired arbitraqtor Shell Kinney was investigated by ArbComm for that. But that insider information does not always appear to be accurate. Mathsci has also identified retired admin User:Matilda as A.K.Nole [77]. Mathsci claims that his opponents know no mathematics. Sadly, it had to be explained to Mathsci that Quotient Group was right and he was wrong on the question of what a semigroup was, by indeopendent and authoritative contributors Hans Adler, Jim and Charles Matthews [78]. Mathsci perhaps is not always right even on his own ground. Mathsci repeats here comments that he keeps in an alternate account [79] (why?). On that page are listed other editors, not mentioned above, whom he confidently asserts to be sockpuppets. Since he has linked to that page here, he needs to substantiate those allegations or, better, remove the page. I think it is abundantly clear that while Mathsci undoubtedly has issues with many users, some of whom are listed here, the community really needs to see actual evidence, from an impartial and authoritative source, before it can act. It has already made one major mistake on the basis of Mathsci's over-enthusiastic assertions and over-reliance on WP:DUCK. It really should not make another. Leon Gonsalez (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC) This was the third edit ever of this account. Cardamon (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC) And whose sock are you? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC) So you go woth the argument that anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of sock-puppet then? Perhaps it would be more helpful to the community to address the objective issues such as: why was Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of A.K.Nole created by Mathsci and populated entirely on his own initiative and without support from any SPI? Why did Mathsci edit war to try to place a user in good standing (alluded to in my previous post) into that category? Why should the community go entirely by the unsupported word one one editor who has already been shown to have made serious mistakes in this area? Leon Gonsalez (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Perhaps also worth mentioning that most of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Echigo mole was poplulated by Mathsci before bringing any SPI, if at all. Most of the IPs and some of the named users, such as Southend sofa, Laura Timmuins, Glenbow Goat, A.B.C.Hawkes were explicitly not found to be sockpuppets of Echigo mole. Tryphaena was debatable and indeed debated between checkusers. Mathsci went ahead and tagged them anyway, rather than leaving it to admins and checkusers who knew what they were doing. He airily alluded to ArbComm, presumably the same person who told him that A.K.Nole was a sock of Matilda. The lesson is that Mathsci's unsupported judgement here simply cannot be relied on. He has been, or believes himself to have been, hassled by sockpuppets and naturally identifies all his opponents with the putative puppeteer. It's very natural, it's just not a sound basis for the community to act on. Leon Gonsalez (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Sadly, Mathsci's response to the remarks by LG above exactly demonstrate why the community should not take the unsupported word of one aggrieved user as the basis for action so drastic as a community ban. Instead of addressing the issues, he has hidden them. Why, if he has nothing to hide? Leon Gonzalez has not been identified as a sock of anyone in particular. Mathsci has decided that he must be Echigo mole and tagged him as such before any SPI finding, and when thare was no support for the claim in the block log. Mathsci may be right but he has certainly failed to exhibit any evidence for that. Even if LG is EM, which is not established, EM is neither community-banned (that is what Mathsci is arguing so vehemently for right now) nor, as Burpleson AFB points out above, is EM def facto banned, as this discussion has already established. Even if EM were banned, which he isn't, and even if LG were EM, which is not established, Mathsci is not compelled by any policy to delete all LG's postings (and indeed has not done so). However, Mathsci has still given no reason for his failure to notify involved parties, as required at this board, and has now aggravated that failure by choosing to delete the notifications correctly placed by LG on accused users' pages, and has given a false and fallacious pretext for doing so. Mathsci has failed to answer the question as to whether he stands by every accusation made at his own sockpuppet's page. In particular, will he explain to the community why he believe User:Junior Wrangler to be an abusive alternate account of anyone, and what steps he has taken to gather evidence for that proposition before twice harassing JW on his user page? More generally, I challenge Mathsci to produce any evidence on-wiki from any other user whatsoever in support of the claims he has persistently made throughout this discussion. Mathsci has chosen to characterise the challenges thrown out by LG as "trolling". This diff [80] in which Mathsci characterises a mild comment by a respected arbitrator as "trolling" for no reason other than that he does not like it, suffices to illustrate exactly what Mathsci means by that term. It is hardly suroprising that ArbComm has just widened the scope of their finding of fact in the R&I review to find that Mathsci has shown "frequent battleground conduct". The object of this commentary is not to accuse Mathsci of wrongdoing, nor to ascribe motives for his actions -- the community may judge those for themselves. It is to point out the dangers if taking the entirely understandable reactrions of one user as a basis for summary action. Jello carotids (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of de-facto-banned users

Moved to Wikipedia talk:List of banned users#Treatment of de-facto-banned users

 – The administrators noticeboard is archived very often and this is a better place for the discussion. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Two new requests for comment regarding the Arbitration Committee

I've started two new requests for comment regarding the Arbitration Committee:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Effect of arbitration processes on editor retention

The intent of these requests is to solicit community feedback regarding potential improvements to the arbitration process. Input from anyone with an interest in arbitration or the Committee's work would be very appreciated! Kirill ^[talk] 20:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we need another notice board?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Do we need another notice board?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for editor Sju hav

To all Wikipedians, I am now proposing a siteban on editor Sju hav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After his indefinitely block in 2010, he has, to date, created over 48 sock puppets within the period of three years, and is believed to have created/used 38 more accounts. He continually creates additional accounts to evade his block, perform 3RR violations on articles of his interest, even after his editing privileges have been revoked. He has also participates in denying having any sockpuppets, when clearly he is just doing so. I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him.

Support: Due to the nominator of the site ban on this editor. Mr. Wikipediania ^Talk 06:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:BLOCKBANDIFF. I don't see the point of these repeated calls for bans. See also another section above, by the same nominator, and ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_banned_users#Treatment_of_de-facto-banned_users. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support in this case. There might not be a technical difference, but this guy needs a hard slap. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad RfC Close

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

After closely examining the arguments put forth in each section, we have concluded that the status quo of the Muhammad article should largely be retained. For proposal 1, we found there to be no consensus to put any type of hatnote in the article. In the discussion of question 2, we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support. This was accompanied by a general sentiment that figurative images were not necessary before the “Life” section, but would certainly be necessary after that point. However, editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so. Furthermore, there was a clear consensus to avoid any quota of figurative or calligraphic image, and to let the text of the article dictate the images used. There was no consensus for how the principle of least astonishment should apply to Muhammad.

Thank you all for your participation and your patience.

Respectfully, Black Kite (talk), Keilana (talk), and Someguy1221 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

General comment

hatting IP trolling Blackmane (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've been trying to report a broken likt to you folks for nearly an hour now. This is the first place I'[vge found that I can actually send a message. You REALLY need a "report a probolem" link for those of us who have NO idea what the heck is going on. FACs do not help. just wanted to tell you a like is broken, but now I'm not going to. You obviously don't casre! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.4.244 (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Every article has a talk page connected to it, which you can reach by hitting the "Discussion" tab, and that would have been a good place to report the problem. However, you came here, and managed to leave a message, but forgot to describe where the broken link is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC) IP decided that we didn't "casre"(sic), so this is just trolling. Hatting. Blackmane (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer (Again)

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

---

Last week there was a proposal at WP:ANI XfD_Topic_Ban_for_User:TenPoundHammer It was rejected - I was one of those that opposed it. However given edits today, I'm re-submitting this.

A thoroughly trivial template replacement is taking place {{TLS-H2}} is to replace {{TLS-H}}. However the templates aren't backward compatible and can't simply be exchanged. No problem, we'll get there eventually. Nothing is even broken in the meantime.

However that's not enough for Hammer. So today, mere days after the ANI thread closes, he's out finding stuff to delete again. Anything will do - even trivial little header templates from a project he shows no previous interest in. No problem though - a quick replacement of the old with the new and nominate the old template for deletion. No need to preview the end results - that's just a content matter, and content isn't important, only the irresistible compulsion to delete something. It might help if the two templates were compatible, and if swapping one for the other didn't break the table headers. It would be even better if Hammer had actually replaced all the uses of this template, rather than still missing one. But that's just the small stuff, and the little people can worry about that. Actually it's not that easy - swapping table columns (as the template replacement needs) is a big time-consuming edit to carry out and check afterwards. It's so much more fun just pressing that XfD button.

For most editors this would just be a goof. Most would even have the grace to be embarrassed about it afterwards. Couple of days after discussion of an XfD topic ban though, this is just too keen to get that deletion fix, and hang the paperwork of checking whether things still work afterwards. An editor this careless should not be left with XfD access. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Last time I supported, which was painful as I really like Hammer. (Times before, I opposed) What I wish Hammer would do is instead voluntarily take a 3 month break from XfD, and make all these AN reports unneeded. Right now, he is under the microscope in a way that isn't healthy for himself or Wikipedia, and I think the self-imposed break would be the better solution if he would agree to it. Hammer probably isn't liking me too much since the last AN, but I'm suggesting this as a friend and as someone who really respects him, but thinks he needs a break. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• You haven't realized yet that Dingley is the only person putting me "under the microscope"? He clearly has a hate-on for me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• "he is under the microscope"

Agreed. And then he still pulls stunts like this. If everyone is watching you, if you can't stop doing it, at least be careful when doing it. Hammer can't even manage that much. Even if he'd realised the pages broke afterwards, then reverted, it wouldn't be a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not "everyone" is watching me. You seem to be the only one crying foul most of the time — you are the one who started most of the discussion on me of late. If only one editor seems to have enough of a beef with me to bother making AN threads, then maybe the problem isn't on my end. And again, I was doing other things, so by the time I realized my change to the template had b0rked the format of the page, someone had already reverted me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I get your point, and had noticed the apparent animosity and would oppose any action here today as this one event isn't ban-able to me. I didn't vote here because I knew what the outcome would be, it seemed moot. My observation is for the purpose of getting you to pull back a bit for reasons unrelated to this particular event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 4:26 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• This seems like a simple enough mistake to make. Template X is deprecated and tells you to use Template Y. I see that four pages are still using Template X and as a result, they have big orange boxes on them saying "DON'T USE TEMPLATE X, IT'S DEPRECATED", so I replace it with Template Y, and think that all is well. This seems like a logical chain of thought, though I admit I should've checked my work a little better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• ETA: I think it's outright ABSURD that anyone would extrapolate that I'm XFDing stuff just because I want to "get that deletion fix". I found that template through navigating a "deprecated templates" category from another TFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The community didn't ban him and he's getting away, this isn't fair I can't keep up. -p

ECx3 What is being asked here ? TPH is under Zero restrictions by the community, so what part of "mere days after the ANI thread closes, he's out finding stuff to delete again." is the problem, do you need a rest, should he slow down for you ? Penyulap ☏ 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note  Penyulap both participated in and closed the previous discussion, [81], [82].  Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• So? Nobody Ent 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the same thing as last time. Dingley has it in his head that I XFD because it gives me power or I have a deletion fetish or something, and cherry-picks any time that I make even the slightest mistake to make me look like I'm a derp and should not edit Wikipedia without supervision. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I have a deletion fetish or something
2. look like I'm a derp
3. should not edit Wikipedia without supervision.

I'd go with all 3 of those.

Actually I thought last week was a witch hunt, trying to nail you like Al Capone, and I don't hold with that. However if you can't hold it together to make XfD's that don't "look like a derp" just days after you were at ANI, then you either fail WP:COMPETENCE or you give so little of a damn about what ANI thinks of you that you don't even start taking a bit more care when you're under the microscope. I don't know which, but neither are the mark of a careful editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither is your tendentious habit of chasing after me and screaming at ANI every time I stray from your image of what makes me a perfect editor. Of course if you only focus on my mistakes, I'm going to seem like a derp, but how many more good edits have I made than bad? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Simple editing screw-up, not worth a fuss. (I stuck a note on {{TLS-H}} to make it clear an editor can simply replace it). Nobody Ent 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Once again, people confusing bad edits and edits they don't like. pbp 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• This was a bad edit - it broke stuff, and he walked away from the mess.

As an edit, I actually like it. It needed doing (manyana), it's just that it's a long and tiresome job to do it correctly and neatly. Hammer shows no inclination towards either "correct" or "neat". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• The only reason I seem to have "walked away" is because by the time I noticed it farked things up, someone had already fixed it for me. I would've fixed it myself, you know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• You "could have" done a whole pile of things. In this case you edited four pages to change the template and didn't notice that you'd broken a single one. You hadn't noticed this, not hadn't fixed it, and it's most unlikely you'd have noticed any time afterwards. WDGraham commented at the AfD about an hour later and noted that you'd missed one before tagging the template for deletion. Two hours after this he reverted the changes, as the change was too big to make quickly to use the new template. You didn't edit again for another four hours, here at WP:AN. If you even hadn't noticed the AfD comments, you weren't going to fix these, you weren't even going to look at them again. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is it really that big a deal though? The damage was really really really really really minor all things considered. Name one thing I've done that has been ZOMG RED ALERT EVACUATE detrimental to the project. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• WDGraham is a fine editor, but not the best backup, he managed to have an argument with himself on the chinese space station, and thats long before you go anywhere near the ISS talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 20:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Do I think it would be less disruptive to Wikipedia if TPH was banned from nominating anything for XfD? Sure. Do I think this discussion will result in that? Very little chance. So until someone else naively decides to start another seemingly toothless RfC let's just move along, and skip the drama. - jc37 19:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 3)Comment  Rather than an XfD ban, I'd rather that TPH show community leadership in using WP:BEFORE.  I'd suggest eight weeks, a limit of 2 XfD noms per week, and that the XfDs exhibit good practice as regards WP:BEFORE, where "good practice" is tbd, but subject to review here.  This is deliberately loose, but any improvement could lead to long-term good.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, the problems are not just with XfD. I see that he still will edit war (this was just two days ago) to restore a speedy deletion tag, even though he has been warned about that behaviour multiple times in the past. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• No one thinks Dingley might be the problem? He seems to be the only one starting threads to bitch at me. It's clear that Dingley has an obsession with trying to run me off the project, and won't stop until his little witch hunt here is successful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Dennis I dislike as much as anyone's TPH's remarkably careless and provocative practices with deletion, but so far he has managed to operate just within the community tolerance. There is not going to be support for forcing him to stop working at deletion unless he does something drastically wrong, and this particular instance isn't that example. There is good reason to criticize individual nominations, but the effect of proposals such as this one is to reinforce his ability to continue, by making the opposition to him seem to be overly and unfairly insistent. Longer experience will show you the inadvisability of repeated accusing someone when the incidents are relatively trivial individually. We have a culture which encourage individual eccentricity, and, on balance, we probably gain from it. In the balance between order and anarchy, Wikipedia is rather far towards the side of anarchy--and I think this is not accidental. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that this isn't actionable DGG, and said so above. I like Hammer enough that I wish I could talk him into simply voluntarily taking a break, before carelessness takes that option off the table for him. I do think he is just on the line, which is why it is better than he self-impose a break, before he innocently screws up and the community forces a break upon him. I can see the day coming soon, which is what has me worried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, if I'm reading everything right, a new TLS-H2 template was created December 2008 and TLS-H stuck with an ugly "deprecated" nag tag in Jan 09 and has been appearing on articles where used until 9:31 today. So for three and a half years wiki-readers have been looking at this baffling tag. I suggest the OP's statement A thoroughly trivial template replacement is taking place is an exaggeration -- it appears a template replacement was not taking place. So today, TPH tries to actually edit the encyclopedia and make it better, and, because he missed something about a 3.5 year old template, is baaaacck in the AN saddle again???Nobody Ent 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly. Yeah, God forbid I should do anything in good faith. It's not like I accidentally the Main Page or something; I just created a minor table error that was just as easy to fix. Good God, Dingley, are you ever making a mountain out of a molehill. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• There is no "try", there is only make it better or make it worse. This isn't about his intentions in removing a template, it's about his ability (which in this case seems to mean lacking the patience to check whether he hasn't broken anything afterwards). If he can't either do things without breaking them, or at least take the time to see he's broken them and either fix or revert afterwards, then he just shouldn't be doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again. You only seem focused on the things I get wrong, which are very minor in number against the things I do right. If you keep cherry picking all my mistakes like this, of course I'm going to come off as incompetent. And even though I admit this was a mistake on my part, it was a.) clearly in good faith, b.) easily reparable, and c.) REALLY FREAKING MINOR SINCE IT WAS ONLY FOUR LOW-TRAFFIC PAGES. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• This is a certain irony in the fact the edit which included If he can't either do things without breaking them, or at least take the time to see he's broken them and either fix or revert afterwards, then he just shouldn't be doing it. deleted another editor's comments. (No worries, I've stuck 'em back in) Nobody Ent 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Andy notified me of this discussion, I'm guessing because I reverted the edits and raised the issue of the mistake at TfD before this discussion began. I can't speak for any previous incidents, but in the case of TLS-H I am certain that attempting to replace the template was a good-faith mistake rather than anything else, and isn't enough to warrant a trout, let alone a topic ban. --W. D. Graham 20:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

XfD Topic Ban for User:Andy Dingley

TPH appears to be under sufficient scrutiny from multiple editors at the current time, Andy Dingley may be able to take a break from this important work for a 3 days. Penyulap ☏ 20:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC) withdrawn as the main drama has been extinguished successfully for now. Penyulap ☏ 21:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can we not haz teh drahmaz pleez? We seem to already have plenty of cheeseburgers... - jc37 20:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• How's about a close. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding submission of evidence in arbitration cases

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

Submissions of evidence are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 difference links for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 difference links for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it.

Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Unapproved over-length submissions, and submissions of inappropriate material and/or links, may be removed, refactored, or redacted at the discretion of the clerks and/or the Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk 19:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Need closure or an admin with too much time

Take your pick: either Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination), which needs a closer, or Talk:Leslie Daigle, with a ton of edit requests (article, a BLP, is fully protected after edit-warring, fluffing, and attacking). Drmies (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Closed in a way that mooted the edit requests. T. Canens (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I ask a leading question? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request for WP:Contact us

Resolved

Would some kind admin please edit Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error where it says Leave a message on the article's talk page; accessed by clicking the "discussion" tab when viewing the page. and change "discussion" to "talk", please? That page is fully protected. I would have added a {{sudo}} to the talk page, but it is semi'd so I can't. Thanks for the help. 64.40.57.22 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 64.40.57.22 (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this deletable?

File:Schliemann mansion 1900.png appears to be a recreation of an image deleted after discussion on commons, see [83]. I note that in the deletion discussion the uploader has said "Secondly, I am not in the slightest bit interested in US copyright law. The applicable law here is Greek, which clearly you do not know, and I assert my own copyright under Greek law." I'm not raising this as a copyvio issue here, just asking if we can delete here with the grounds that it was deleted after discussion on Commons (and if we can't, that won't be a surprise). I do think I can delete on the copyvio issue though. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If these are postcards made c.1900, and, as such, can be safely assumed to have been published around the same time too, then they are fair game under {{PD-US-1923}}. Commons may have been right about deleting them, based on the principle that on Commons they need to be PD both in the country of origin and in the US, but here on en-wp it's only US law that counts. I think the uploader has gotten the legal argument the wrong way round if he is arguing he can use them under Greek but not under US law. It's actually US law that allows us to keep them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(Adding to this, I'd be skeptical about the uploader's claim that his modifications (colouring etc.) constitute a new copyright of his own, so I'd prefer tagging them as PD-US-1923 rather than cc-by-sa under his own authorship, but the basic fact that the original postcards are PD remains the same. If his argument holds that there is no retroactive copyright for that period under local Greek law either, that's fine, but it doesn't really matter much either way.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is wrong. The images published by me are not PD images: they are my own copyright and published as CC-by-SA on flickr. I know far more about copyright law than anyone here so please just accept this. I am in accordance with the law of the EU and Greece. US law has nothing to say on this, since it is outside of its jurisdiction. Please do not make this into a legal challenge; you will lose and waste everyone's time and money. But you cannot appropriate my personal copyright, nor make into PD things that are not. 85.72.192.70 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, I have followed both law and the rules of WP to the letter. If you should arbitrarily countermand my actions -- in breach of both WP rules and European law -- this is legally actionable. The only reason that these things continue with illegal actions on wikimedia and elsewhere is that it costs money to sue. If people start doing this, you will have good reason to worry. Law is not simple, and copyright law in particular is very very complex. As things currently stand, the only person against whom any legal action could be taken is me -- for publishing significantly altered uncopyrighted images as my own copyright. If you change anything, you and wikipedia are open to legal action -- by me or by unknown persons. 85.72.192.70 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The analysis given above are correct. We consider both the US nature of the work (due to en.wiki being hosted on US soil) and the originating country of the work. An image may be copyrighted in one country but be considered PD in the other. To that end, en.wiki will still call them non-free images since they cannot be free reused by any reader. But we can mark them as PD within the United States only as long as the date qualifies it correctly. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia and Wikipedia servers are in the United States, so that jurisdiction is indeed relevant to this question. For what it's worth, colourization would indeed be grounds for an additional copyright under US law. The colourized images should not be tagged as public domain. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked 85.72.192.70 for making legal threats. The block is initially for 24 hours to allow reconsideration of this policy infringement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to understand this correctly. You have tried to ban me from speaking here, because I did the following: (1) outline the legal situation concerning non-copyrighted (they are not PD) images that have been substantially altered in an EU country; (2) defend my own copyright rights; (3) explain that certain actions would be illegal and lay WP open to litigation. By your criteria, every lawyer in the world should be arrested for "making threats" and anyone who asserts his rights should be too. Some people might describe this way of thinking as authoritarian or fascist -- but it is certainly neither democratic nor lawful. 85.74.231.186 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is your item (3). See WP:NLT: "If you have a dispute with the community or its members, use dispute resolution. If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked. ". JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Item (3) explains to you that WP would be open to legal action by other persons, as well as by me. It is not a threat. I thought it was very clear that I was making a rational and legal argument. 85.74.231.186 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Also see WP:EVADE: " User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked". JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to block the actual account, User:Xenos2008 I think. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per this edit [84]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as well for legal threats. Note that although the IP block was 24 hours (which is ok for an IP address which he seems able to change), a legal threat block is normally indefinite (and of course can be lifted in minutes). Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh-oh. I could have predicted that Xenos wouldn't react well to being reminded of the NLT policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not made any legal threats. I have pointed out what the law is. There is a big difference. There is not even any subtle use of language implying threats: this is just abuse of power by people on WP. 85.74.231.186 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All an unblock needs is a statement on your account page that you will not take legal action or suggest that others do so. I'm blocking this IP now. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh come on, Xenos. I respect you; you're a knowledgable contributor and those images are great. It's just that with your irate tone you're not going to get your way in this project. Just be the bigger person, say that you don't intend to sue anybody, and then we can figure out those details over Greek vs. US law or public domain vs CC-BY. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have never said that I would sue anyone: I was talking about the legal position of these images. I see no reason to retract something that I did not say! 85.74.224.205 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• On a somewhat related note, I believe that image is more trouble than it's worth. Can someone please IAR delete it? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be a pity. I rather like those pics, and they are potentially valuable for any article on the history of Athens. Since the only disagreement is whether they are PD-old or CC-BY, I don't really see grounds for deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, I don't see any grounds for deletion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Is there no way of getting the original ones? Those we are sure are PD, I mean. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Apparently they are collector's items in Xenos' personal possession. Unlikely that good online copies should exist elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it absolutely outrageous that I should have to keep changing my IP address to have a polite discussion about the legal status of images that I posted onto WP. Do you not see that this is abuse of power? Specifically, let me clarify what has happened (also on wikimedia). I have been collecting rare antiques (books, map and postcards/photos) on the history of Greece and especially Athens over several years. Some of these images are posted on the web as scanned (not high quality remastered) and they cannot be used on wikimedia. So I decided to scan some antiques in my possession, work on the image quality to re-present the historical image better, and post them on wikimedia. Over there, some Germans started crap about copyright law and they were not PD images that I had scanned, so they could not be left there at all.

This obliged me to research on Greek copyright law more carefully. There was no copyright on anything before 1920, and the 1993 and later laws are not retroactive. These are therefore not public domain images that I scanned, so much as uncopyrighted (and open to legal challenge, unlikely as that is). Any competent copyright lawyer will explain that there is ambiguity, but in all probability the scanned images could be tolerated as PD and the altered images as my own copyright. As I mentioned above, WP takes no legal risk in allowing my images on WP: the risk is all mine. If you try to claim that my copyrighted images are PD, then this amounts to copyright theft.

If, on the other hand, you ask me if I would consider making my images PD, then the answer is that I have tended to do that in the past, also for my own photos. The only reason I did not do so, is because (a) wikimedia claims that the originals and not PD; (b) it would be nice to have some recognition of my name for the hours of work in improving the images, not to mention the fact that I have spent money on the original items (many of which are rare and expensive). I still do not see why they have to be PD on wikipedia, since you allow CC-by-SA images which these are. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, I think you've really jumped the gun here with the block. I don't see any legal threats from this user, nor do I see any evidence that he was acting disruptively prior to the block. He was trying to resolve a licensing dispute in a civil manner. I hope you will consider unblocking him so that he can continue the conversation here without having to circumvent the block. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting: " If you change anything, you and wikipedia are open to legal action -- by me or by unknown persons." Pretty clear cut case. And the approach was far from civil, putting those challenging the images immediately as the "bad guys". --MASEM (t) 17:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A statement of law is not a threat, especially when the law itself may be unclear to you so I was setting it out. My approach was (I think) civil and irritable, since I have gone through weeks of arguing with wikimedia on points of law with these same images. Enough is enough. If you cannot accept the rule of law, then simply state it outright and do as you like. I will certainly keep away from WP (and presumably others would too). 85.74.224.205 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat—not even a thinly veiled one. It was a statement that removing legitimate copyright notices from images—which is precisely what you proposed doing—is illegal and exposes Wikimedia to civil action, not just in this specific case, but generally. Anyone who would knowingly do this is indeed a "bad guy", as evidenced by the routine blocks and bans for this behaviour. I'm sure you would be just as taken aback if someone proposed changing or removing the licenses to the images or text you have contributed here. The uploader comes across as quite arrogant about his knowledge of copyright law, and about others' lack thereof, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review

Moved here from WP:ANI to keep things together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to review the block of Xenos2008 (and associated IPs) issued following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#Is_this_deletable.3F. The situation can be summarized as follows:

1. Xenos2008 uploads some images to which he has asserted a copyright claim. He tags them as "CC-BY-SA".
2. Future Perfect at Sunrise and Masem dispute the copyright claim and propose changing the tags to "public domain".
3. Xenos2008 inform the two that removing the valid copyright notice and license would be illegal and expose Wikipedia to legal liability.
4. Jimfbleak and Dougweller block Xenos2008 for making legal threats, and tell him that he can be unblocked only if he promises not to sue.

This demand is entirely unfair. For one thing, Xenos2008 never threatened to sue to begin with. Jimfbleak and Dougweller's interpretation of his statements as a legal threat is inconsistent with past practice at WP:AN and WP:ANI; previously administrators have declined to issue blocks for similarly worded statements. HighInBC summed it up quite well in one case in 2007: "Explaining that certain actions may expose Wikipedia to legal problems is not a legal threat, even if that claim is incorrect." The blocking administrators also failed to comply with WP:LEGAL: "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." As far as I can tell, no such attempt at clarification was made before the block.

For what it's worth, Xenos2008 has categorically denied that the statement was meant to be a threat, though for some reason this avowal isn't good enough.

More importantly, what if Xenos2008 does issue the promise not to sue, only to have some editors end up removing the copyright tags from his images? If his original claim to copyright on the images was correct (and I believe it is), he has now lost (or at least jeopardized) his only legal recourse against a bona fide copyright violation. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, and don'd mind what happens to the block, but this isn't quite right. His images were deleted at Commons after a discussion.[85]. He then uploaded them again here. I wasn't sure whether they should be deleted or not and asked at WP:AN. Through an IP address he wrote at WP:AN "As things currently stand, the only person against whom any legal action could be taken is me -- for publishing significantly altered uncopyrighted images as my own copyright. If you change anything, you and wikipedia are open to legal action -- by me or by unknown persons." That sort of wording has been considered a legal threat before and accounts blocked. The IP was blocked, he responded from another IP. I blocked his account and made it clear he had to post there clarifying that he meant no legal threat. He hasn't done this. Using other IPs he has said that it was not a threat, but he has never said that he does not intent to take any legal action or suggest that others do so. People should read the discussion at WP:AN to see the exact wording. And please note the block evasion and failure to ask for an unblock on his account page. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I would have happily unblocked immediately if he'd simply made it clear he wasn't going to take legal action. At AN he said he wasn't going to retract something he hadn't said, but in fact he was being asked to clarify it, which is not the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The block was in keeping with normal practices and justified at the time it was made. However, I'm satisfied with the retraction/clarification/call-it-whatever-you-want, and I've known Xenos (and his irate temper) for long enough to know he's a potentially valuable contributor despite all harsh words, so I'm personally fine with an unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let me share one thing that I'm pretty sure I understand about US copyright law. If you take something that is PD, modify it, you can copyright it. That doesn't take away the fact that the original is PD. PD isn't a license that can be violated, it is a lack of license. PD isn't the GPL, it does not force modifications to be released under the same license, or in this case, without a license. Greek law isn't needed to establish his right to release under copyright, and isn't needed or particularly relevant here, so I won't bother with it. As for legal threat, it does appear that he was simply asserting his legal right to copyright, but I can see how that can be interpreted either way. It would make sense if he just would indicate that he will not sue anyone. It doesn't require a retraction, it requires an affirmative statement. That seems the shortest distance between these two points. I would be happy to argue his right to claim a copyright as I am convinced he is correct, even if for different reasons than he thinks applies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dennis Brown. To my regards, it is fine, even necessary to describe the legal status of a derivative work. The moment that discussion begins to name litigants, it becomes a block-worthy threat. This happened and the block is justified. My76Strat (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime the images have been relabelled as PD in the USA, which is not correct. They require attribution under CC-by-SA, even if the original scans (which I have not provided) are PD-old. In fact, the original scans are clearly PD in both the USA and the EU, but wikimedia refuse to accept that. (They have also relabelled images over there as PD when they are not.) As far as making a statement that I do not intend to take legal action is concerned, what is the point? It would not stop me from taking legal action later! However, I have no intention of wasting time and money going to court over some images that I have no commercial involvement with. Nor have I ever threatened to do so. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You can log back in - you've been unblocked. Just sort out the copyright tags Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dennis, I think your missing an important element in your copyright analysis, to have a copyright in the modification of a PD work, the modification must be substantial, and involve significant creativity. Many types of modifications, such as touching up, croping, or adjusting the image are not sufficient to create a copyright in the derivative. Monty₈₄₅ 21:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was thinking when I made my initial suggestion of PD status. Not that I have a strong opinion on it either way – if he had simply said "no, I think my modifications are original enough to warrant my own copyright claim, so I'd prefer for it to be listed under my authorship", I'd have been inclined to just leave it at that, and we could have avoided a lot of the drama. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is in the eye of the beholder, and since it is modified, he has the right to claim copyright, and we are forced to accept this here as we are not a court of law. If someone independent of Wikipedia wants to contest this, use it as PD, forcing him to exert his right to copyright, that is a matter for the courts, not us. Here, we can only give the benefit of the doubt since it is modified and err on the side of using the most restrictive form of protection, copyright, since it is at the minimum, a legitimate claim. If for no reason other than to protect Wikipedia from potential liability as enabling infringement, this makes sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct statement of law, Dennis. One further point: there is no provision on flickr for labelling images as PD, so I am having to state this (for some simple scans of maps) in the text. These I would not assert any copyright over, since they are mere scans. The whole thing is tendentious anyway: doubtless people everywhere will treat images on WP as PD anyway, and whatever I do the guys on wikimedia refuse to accept the scans as PD. So there is no point changing anything, at least as far as the postcard views are concerned. My main objective is to allow people to see and use these important historical images, which I have gone to much trouble and expense to collect. Thank you. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Monty845 writes, "Many types of modifications, such as touching up, cropping, or adjusting the image are not sufficient to create a copyright in the derivative." However, that colourization of an existing work can be considered a "minimum amount of individual creative human authorship" to produce "an original work of authorship" is already a settled matter in US copyright law. The issue has arisen often enough with motion pictures that the Copyright Office has drawn up a set of criteria for determining whether a given colourization is registerable as an original work (quoted and discussed in, for example, "Update on the Film Colorization Debate Copyright Office Issues Registration Decision and Congress Considers Proposed Legislation"). I don't know whether there's a similar published list for still images, but one would imagine that the criteria would be similar. Psychonaut (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The adjustments made vary widely across the different images, but the time taken ranges from about 90 minutes to 9 hours per image. The techniques I have used are intended to recreate as near to a modern photo as possible, in some cases quite far removed from the published image if there are serious errors in printing. Typically, this involves resetting colours by pixel groups, altering the total colour balance, removing horrible printing mistakes (smudges and overlaps) as well as damage from handling over time, resolution management, etc. I think the results speak for themselves, and you can find a few of these images online and merely scanned. The River Ilissos one has been put on quite a few blogs, but wikimedia refuse to allow the images as PD. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The US does not adhere to the sweat of the brow doctrine, so the amount of time you invested in colourizing the images is irrelevant. All that matters is the creativity involved. Psychonaut (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is true for the US. However, I am asserting the copyright under Greek/EU law, which the USA is obliged to respect in principle -- even if the US courts would not reach the same conclusions as Greek courts. Only litigation would resolve that, and it is pointless to discuss it. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: the decision you link to speaks of processes of entirely new coloration of previously black-and-white works, which is not what happened here. It also mentions that "mere variations of coloring" are not copyrightable. With all respect towards Xenos' work in fixing up these images, that wording would seem to suggest non-copyrightability in a case like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read the entire article. It discusses at some length the Copyright Office's attitude to colourization in general, not just to the new process. Psychonaut (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Psychonaut: I did read it. "registration will not be made for [...] the enhancement of color in a previously colored film [...] prohibition on copyright registration based on mere variations of color" seemed pretty clear to me. But whatever, as I said earlier, it's not as if I cared a great deal. If Xenos insists on his copyright claim, I for one have no problem with letting it pass, and in fact I have in the meantime adapted the image tags accordingly. (Btw, Xenos, you said you didn't find an option on Flickr to mark something as PD. I believe the "cc-zero" option is essentially that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I understand, there is a tag CC-zero and no way to insert it! A lot of grumbles over there on forums about it. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

FP: the legal test of copyright, in both the USA and Europe, hinges on the degree of originality, nature and extent of any alteration to a previous version. This can only be determined by a court, although in US law precedent can be used (as opposed to continental legal systems). Given that there is a very great difference between the scanned images and those I have produced, sometimes taking a great deal of time and learned skills as well as sophisticated software, I am confident that most courts would accept the new copyright. In cases where I have made little contribution other than high-quality scanning, I tag images as PD. Moreover, potentially a Greek court could award copyright and the US refuse to do so; the situation is so complex that there is no point arguing. 85.74.224.205 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What matters most is what we do at Wikipedia, and again, we are forced to take the most restrictive view for our own protection, which is to allow the claim of copyright when the author has made the claim and it can not be clearly proven otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Strat)He's emailed BASC - assertingt a claim of copyright should never fall under WP:LEGAL and he should never have been blocked, although I understand that his choice of phrasing may not have assisted in clearing the matter up earlier. I have unblocked him - hopefully more dialogue can sort out the correct tags for the uploaded images. Dennis appears to have hit the heart of the matter here.. Elen of the Roads (talk)

As I said at ANI, I don't mind the unblock, although he could have been unblocked much faster (and I would never have blocked the account), had he simply made it clear that he had no intent of taking legal action. Glad that's resolved. Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this wasn't raised directly with me, rather than brought straight here. Still, I've finally been invited to the party (: I don't have any further comment since a consensus seems to have been reached here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I did raise it with you upthread, but as I didn't receive a response after three hours, I thought it best to request a review from an uninvolved party. Normally I wouldn't have done so after waiting so short a time, but Xenos2008 was continuing to dig a hole for himself by evading the block, and as he had a legitimate concern (despite the illegitimate way of expressing it) I felt it important that it be heard. I didn't mean to imply that your block was malicious, only that it was erroneous. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of copyright licences, is there now some agreement that these are simply CC-by-SA? They are certainly not PD-US as currently tagged (because they were not published in the USA) and I do not think they should be tagged as PD-OLD either, although the original simple scans should be that. If the agreement is to accept the asserted copyright status, then perhaps someone could remove the PD-USA tags from various images I uploaded. Thanks. Xenos2008 (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The files aren't tagged as PD-US. They are tagged as CC-BY-SA. However, I mentioned in the file description that the original postcards are PD-US. That is quite true: Things published abroad before 1923 are in the public domain according to US law [86]. US law assigns a copyright status (either copyrighted or public domain) to things even when they have not been published in the US. This status may differ from that in the country of origin, and for our considerations under Wikipedia practice, it's always the US status and not the local status in the country of origin that counts. This is just standard stuff in our treatment of images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(Addition): If what you object to is the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag: I know the language of that tag doesn't fit these cases precisely. The tag is just a practical matter: as long as the files have a "free" license descriptor on them (CC or PD or whatever), somebody will eventually try to move them to Commons. However, for better or worse, Commons has made the decision they don't want them, so if they were moved there now, they'd be subject to deletion again. The tag is just there to avoid the silly trouble of moving them back and forth all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I don't object to the do not move to Commons tag, this is a good idea. What is a problem is that it says that the images are free in the USA, but this is not correct. The original postcard images are PD, but not these modified images. So, I guess it is not the tag as such, but the descriptor which is misleading. i also think that under US law the postcard images should be PD-old and not PD-US (but this is a detail). The probablity is that people will assume that they can use the images in the USA as being PD (when they are not). Xenos2008 (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've lost me here. I really don't see how the description "Original postcard is in the public domain (

). Digital enhanced version released under cc-by-sa" contradicts what you just said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Since a copyright is being claimed, and PD is not a license, attribution or disclaimer is not required. There is no need nor requirement to even mention PD in the licensing statement, it is superfluous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Need a batch revert

Resolved

User:Mishae began an ill-advised project of removing persondata information from articles, and although I think I've got him to stop, there are more than 60 articles that need to have his edits reverted. I don't use automated tools myself, and I'm about to turn in for the night; is there any way to do a quick revert of the removals? The first one is apparently this, although there are a few other edits mixed in, so a revert of this and all his subsequent edits would be overkill. Deor (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The only tool I know of would be "overkill", but if folks are okay with it, I'll just do it by hand. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I apparently haven't got him to stop, so if you or anyone else can explain the matter better than I have on his talk page, I'd appreciate it. Deor (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I helped, though my use of rollback may have been ill-advised, so I'll discontinue any further reverts on my part. May need to go through these manually to check that I didn't revert any edits that had constructive additions as well as persondata blanking. Will check into it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Saw your changes Evanh2008, I haven't looked through them all, but I wouldn't fret the reflist->Reflist changes the editor was making as you go through it. I also see User:Reaper Eternal got some of 'em as well. I'll take a shot at talking to the user in a moment. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal seems to be doing another pass finding the best version to revert to, I'll head toward the user now. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, all. Deor (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In future, this is a problem I can usually fix. Subject to ArbCom of course. Rich Farmbrough, 16:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

User talk:Joppenheim

The unblock request hangs there for ten days, can someone decide upon it? Max Semenik (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes--thanks for letting us know. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Yeah1234? needs to be blocked indefinitely (Vandalism only account)

Hello everyone, i just came across this user account User:Yeah1234? and saw that all of their edits are all disruptive vandalism and trolling when the account was registered on May 25, 2012 (same day). Also the disruptive filter log tells the same thing. So this account would obviously had to be blocked indefinitely but strangely had only been blocked for a week due to which which afterwards the vandal person might come back and disrupt and vandalize Wikipedia again which is prohibited. As all similar types of vandal and troll only accounts are usually indefinitely blocked, this one also needs to be. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• JoJan has already blocked for one week. [87] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

[e/c] (1) And you failed to ask the blocking admin, JoJan (talk · contribs), first before coming here because...? You never know, he might have been able to explain to you that his blocking philosophy is to give a one week block to such accounts to see if they come back with reformed attitudes. If they don't come back, no problem; if they do come back and vandalise, indef. Not everyone's approach, and I might not be phrasing it as JoJan would, but not unacceptable. (2) And you've failed to tell JoJan about this thread because...? @DB, the complaint here is that the block was only one week, not that the account was as yet unblocked. Bencherlite^Talk 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I phrased that badly, meant only to provide the link and admin name, then got distracted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have informed User:JoJan about this thread. It never was and never is my intention to point out anything to them or anyone else. I thought that only those users need to be informed that are involved in any problems/disputes, and i had none problem or query with User:JoJan did i ever mention that in my first edit ? No. I had just asked for the right thing that need to have been done. Apologies to anyone if they got hurt, it never was my intention, i wanted to do the right thing. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you informed him after I did. Your complaint was that Yeah1234 hadn't been blocked for long enough. There was no urgency about the situation, as the user was blocked, so your first port of call is not this noticeboard but the admin who blocked for (in your view) too short a time. If you do call an admin's judgment into question in this way on this noticeboard, it's only courteous to tell him. Bencherlite^Talk 22:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I really apologize again, i never knew that i was making a mistake if you think so. There was no time problem as you might be thinking and i never was calling an administrator's judgement in question. Just that i thought of posting the thread here as it is the most general place to post this types of requests. Please do not have any misunderstanding with me! I will keep in mind the following points you have said for similar future situations. Please understand that i am also a human being and not perfect and i still am learning my way around Wikipedia as it has been only some months that i have been actively editing here. No human being is all round prefect and occasionally makes mistakes (if this was one) and learns from them, i have too. I always try to help the project as best possible as i can. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning an admin's actions if it is done in a polite way, starting on their talk page. We are not gods to be feared, we are humans no different than you, our votes don't count any more than yours, and we aren't better than you. We just have a few nifty tools and a reasonable amount of experience. If you do have a question, start on the admin's talk page. If that doesn't work, I suggest asking a different admin his opinion next. Then if you have to, you can come here if you think there is a breach of trust (ie: the admin did something actually wrong, like block someone they were in a dispute with). If they give you an answer that you just don't like, we can't fix that. But never be afraid to ask an admin why they did something, as long as you do it proper. If you think that I ever screwed up, I would want you to ask me, so I can either explain it, or if I made a mistake, so I can fix it. Admins shouldn't ever be feared here, and we are accountable for our actions. Just ask nicely on our talk pages first next time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Bencherlite courtesy is also assuming good faith when a user doesn't notify another editor of a post here. Like It's best to discuss with the blocking admin on their talk page instead of asking pointy questions like you didn't because? Because they didn't know any better. Because the tops of these pages are committee designed wall o' text but the community is too ingrained to streamlined them. You never know, he might have been able to explain to you strikes me as snark, not courtesy. Nobody Ent —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I usually don't block a newbie indefinetely, unless it is really necessary. I try to apply WP:BITE. The vandalism involved was childish, not really hurtful. Maybe this person will come back and I want to give him/her at least the chance to give a positive contribution. If not, then more severe measures can be taken. If another admin disagrees with this policy, then this admin can block for a longer time or even indefinetely. JoJan (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Jayen466 (talk · contribs) by Remedy 21.1 of the Scientology case ("Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Stray checkboxs appearing near users blocked status

Any other admin seeing a stray checkbox in the red block log at the top of this page and the users contribs page? The checkbox is clickable, but doesn't seem to correspond to anything else on the page. Did I miss a new admin feature, or is this a question for WP:VPT or a bug for bugzilla?  7  05:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bugzilla and/or Village Pump. I seem to recall hearing about this in a different context, and an admin who checked the box supposedly blocked himself. So, um...probably best not to play with it. Risker (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Risker - will log there. I couldn't resist clicking and didn't block myself, but the day's not over yet.  7  05:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bug 37208 logged.  7  05:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This appears for me on MediaWiki.org, so it's not unique to this project.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This probably appeared because checkboxes were added to the deletion log to allow quickly revdeleting entries of the log. Of course, on user pages and contribution lists it makes no sense to have it there. Jafeluv (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Restoring

Hello. Please restore my user page. Thanks. --Elmju (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Jenks24 (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests

Backlogged 10 days.Rich Farmbrough, 12:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Block review requested for Historiographer

Historiographer (talk · contribs)

WP:ANI#Personal attack by User: Historiographer

The user has been blocked after a complaint at ANI, I ask for clarification regarding consideration of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which has not been referred to by the original complainant or the blocking admin. It appears to have been overlooked, despite it's significance, which changes entirely what appeared as a npa into very wise advice. Penyulap ☏ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it is you're doing, you're not helping the user; posting unblock-requests on someone else's talkpage knowing full well they will be declined isn't good. Historiographer now has two declined unblock-request on his page, neither of which were even made by him/her. I suggest someone remove these so it won't give the wrong impression when giving just a quick glance. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like someone with limited English skills (thought their English is far better than my Korean or Japanese) attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice. If I'm reading correctly, the proper response isn't a block, but some wikilove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I highly agree, has the blocking admin been contacted? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot more to this than one comment - heck, just look at his remarks after being mentioned on ANI. Too bad at English to contribute to discussion imo, so even if block removed he should only be doing edits that don't require discussion (whatever they may be). Egg Centric 17:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, the block is for more than just some NPA-slip; this user has a history of edit-warring, attacks and other stuff. So it's not like it's made to look; there's more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The last edit war block was over a year ago. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

hm. I didn't know you had the right to edit-war once a year. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is that it is not relevant to the current case, which appears to not be a case at all and just a mistake on the blocking admin's part. Silverseren^C 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make the same point, but Silver Seren beat me to it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a mistake. Why is this split across the two noticeboards? I commented on the thread at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why it's split between two discussions, you might want to merge them. However, i've read your statement over there and I very much disagree with you. This block is significantly out of proportion. The next logical step, if a block was warranted, would be to go to 1 week, after the last block a year ago of 72 hours. But a block is not warranted here, a warning is. Silverseren^C 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is split across two notice boards because a request for a block is viewed as an incident requiring quick action, and belonging on the incident page, while a review of a block is less urgent and belongs on the AN page. That said, the page instruction leave a lot to be desired. I've figured out what goes where mostly by osmosis.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving my earlier response here from WP:ANI:

@Penyulap: I am at a loss to understand why you would think the "Please, Don't mind too" part of Historiographer's edit [88] is relevant to the block reasons. That bit is of course harmless. What's not harmless is the fact that he was calling Japanese users Jjokbaries (a racist slur) and was describing them wholesale as disruptive social misfits who enjoyed damaging Wikipedia articles. If that was not the expression of a deeply entrenched battleground attitude, I don't know what is. Moreover, the block was also based on a review of his previous pattern of contributions (although these are mostly some months back; he's been inactive of late except for today's talk page post). Historiographer obviously knows too little English to interact with other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex POV disputes, and that means that his editing has been mostly restricted to blanket reverts of other users accompanied with edit summaries in broken, almost incomprehensible English. Such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is disruptive especially when it happens in a highly charged, contentious topic area such as this. WP:COMPETENCE is required.

This is not to say that other users in the field may not also be deserving of similar blocks, or even more so. Historiographer's outburst against Japanese editors who "feels ecstasy when they bothering Koreans", while unacceptable in the way he expressed it, may partly be a sign of an understandable frustration, because, frankly, we have had a couple of Japanese users in the past to whom this description more or less applied. I don't know how many of them are currently on the loose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And more responses to the comments above:

• @SPhilbrick and others: I also cannot follow you at all in describing this posting as "attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice". I'll give you my own translation of the original post into proper English, staying as close as possible to what Historiographer apparently meant to say:

  Japanese users such as Kusunose, who restrict themselves to Korea-related articles, have always been annoying like this. I used to confront these troublesome jjokbaris [i.e. Japanese bastards] just like you are doing now. However, there is no definite solution to this problem, because anti-Korean Japanese users are otaku [i.e. obsessed] hikikomori [i.e. loners] and get their greatest joy out of annoying Koreans. Please ignore them. Truth will prevail on Wikipedia regardless of Japanese lies.

  There is no reasonable way of reading this posting according to which Historiographer isn't:

  1. calling Japanese editors "bastards/scum" ("jjokbari") – this is not within the scope of what he "used to do" but "is no longer doing"; he is clearly saying now that these people actually are scum;
  2. describing Japanese editors as socially impaired (roughly: "obsessed basement-dwelling nerds");
  3. attributing to Japanese editors a fundamental desire to harm Wikipedia;
  4. describing the disputes between Korean and Japanese editors as a matter of "truth" versus "lies" ("hoaxes");
  5. reenforcing the other editor's (a newbie's) description of Japanese editors as "vandals" (rather than trying to dissuade him of that mistake, as any reasonable experienced editor should).
• @Silverseren: I don't take kindly to baseless insinuations of "involved" admin misuse; please retract that because I regard it as an insult. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I read it differently.

I read it, using a very generous translation, as saying" "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off."

Good advice, if accompanied by stronger language than necessary. Worth a trip to WQA? Probably. Worth a three month block? Not IMO.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are misreading it. This is definitely not what he was saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the block was much stronger than necessary. There were some racist personal attacks there, but I think anything more than a week is completely unreasonable and I'm not entirely sure a block was absolutely necessary prior to a full ANI discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

After seeing this edit I am fully supportive of the block. I still think 3 months becomes punitive rather than preventative. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but you were the one who blocked him twice before. Don't you think that makes you biased in terms of this user, especially when others are pointing out that it seems too much? Silverseren^C 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not too involved, 3rr blocks are fairly cut and dry and don't generally equate to "involvement" Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No, it doesn't. Since when does being acquainted with a user's disruptive pattern from an administrator's perspective make an administrator automatically biased? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When a future block of the user seems overdone. A week would have been defensible, not three months. Silverseren^C 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My only possibly bias in this area is that I am of the opinion we should treat all disruptive editors in the Korea-Japan hotspot areas, on both sides, with extra harshness. Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's interpretation of the above screed, and my only complaint is that this block isn't indef. But I suppose this is a good compromise; if you really, seriously cannot see the problem with referring to Japanese people as jjokbaris (which is sort of like calling them Japs or slant-eyes in English), I can't help you (despite my signature, I can assure you that I'm white and don't have any personal reason to be offended). I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, it is policy itself that the English server is shared amongst all editors with different variants of English. They do not ask any special treatment that you take sufficient care to understand their variant of the english language, it is policy that you must. You describe the editors summaries as "broken, almost incomprehensible English." they may be so to you, however, do you not see that there are people who do have a clear understanding of the editors remarks ? How does this fit in with your mention of WP:COMPETENCE in your ability to cope with judging the editors remarks ? Penyulap ☏ 20:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken English is not a "variant" of English. It's just broken. Yes, one can generally figure out what he means, with some effort. That doesn't change the fact that the presence of English at this poor level is disruptive to the smooth working of the project. As, incidentally, can be seen from the fact that in this particular instance some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

i are agree to sun, the wonderful at dawn. the english which smashed not understanding the english themselves, who are confused. Egg Centric

(edit conflict)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, I do agree with you about the harshness required for dealing with racial trolling, however there are two separate issues here and as best I can see Future Perfect at Sunrise is unaware of the clear interpretation of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which was overlooked and left out of the original complaint. It reverses the statement. It is significant.

Once that mistake is recognised and dealt with, yes of course you deal with the secondary issue of mentioning such things in conversation masked as good advice as inflammatory in itself, and determine if that was the intention. Overt attack is the reasoning behind the block, and an overt attack it is not. Penyulap ☏ 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? How does "Please, Don't mind too" "reverse the statement"? It does not. The phrase meant "please ignore what those Japanese editors are doing". What on earth did you think it meant? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel I understood it, and that was that. It was wise advice from one editor to another, it DID NOT name any other editor, was sympathetic and intended to ease tensions rather than inflame them. If we are going to sit and search for a fault with any editor there are more likely candidates than this one. The finer interpretation of hidden dynamics, I feel should not be handled by an admin who describes that editors variant as incomprehensible.

SPhilbrick seems to have translated into a more familiar to you ? variant. So if you want to know what "reverse the statement" means, leave the italicised words out of his translation. "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off." although, I think the original editor said it better himself in his own language. "Please, Don't mind too." is not open to ambiguity. Penyulap ☏ 21:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You are misreading this in such an absurd fashion I really have nothing more to say. Except for this: if this guy's English is so poor that he could be misunderstood by a competent speaker of English, like you, in such an utterly absurd way, that's all the more grounds for keeping him blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Righteous block Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

English speakers by percentage within European Union countries, everything in grey is not EU, so percentages there aren't shown. The lightest shade of green (bottom right) means less than 20% can speak English. This is just Europe and just the EU, then there is Asia, including Indian, before you reach across to Japan and Korea and the rest of east Asia

Certainly if I were the only person who 'misunderstood' the editors comments I may doubt myself and review several times more until I could see my misinterpretation, however I see that I am not alone. I find that I am endlessly quoting and linking to this policy page in articles, and once before at ANI I posted up the image I will repost here. Whilst I can understand that you find other variants of English disruptive in themselves, I don't think it proper to interpret policy in a way that places your own sub-demographic above all others.

If language is a reason to block, we need to update policy to decide which variant to use. Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we can block all the British editors? Because British English is confusing, imo. Silverseren^C 21:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Eenie, meenie, minee, MO! which way shall we GO ? I'm sure you know there are like 250 million people in America, but did you know there are 80 million Nigerians who speak English ? Maybe they can run scams on the 125,000,000 people in India who can speak English, you know using the call centres, and there are 90 million English speakers in the phillipines, sweet, so, who do we ban pre-emptively first ? Personally I think it should be the whistleblower, that would be me, I'll return as a sock and help you ban all these variant speakers shall I? Yep, I'm losing it, time for me to get something to eat I guess, or play a computergame. Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, the easiest method is to ban everyone who isn't American. Silverseren^C 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going with Blade on this one: resorting to racist slurs should result in an indef. Full stop, no exceptions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What about Blades similar use of slurs, he said "I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here." I count two slurs right there, we should indef him, and omg I just repeated them, so indef me as well. And the Americans, Canadians, omg lets go SOPA for a day and block everyone to teach them all a lesson.

But seriously, which interpretation are you going on HandThatFeeds ? the overt one, the covert one, or are you aware there is a difference ? Penyulap ☏ 22:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, quit being so melodramatic. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Your hyperbole and incessant need to go over-the-top is not helping these discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template use prohibition

Seems like other than the blocked editor posting the unblock template is confusing and disruptive... does this happen frequently enough to make discussion of a formal prohibition worthwhile? Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

certainly it is, looking over the unblock pages and guides it says nothing whatsoever about third parties, I would gladly help with some feedback :) Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The documentation for the template says "The following should be placed on your talk page:"Nobody Ent 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think of just how funny it would have been if I did it that way, rats! Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well I placed it on my userpage, I have no idea how it looks there, if it is humorous or not, see for yourself now would someone please move this little section or start a suggestion somewhere that the docs for the template are inadequate or something ? way I see it at the moment, if you want to unblock someone, use an unblock template, if there is some other way to do it, lets not keep it a secret any longer, as for me, I'll go on using the template as is, it's good enough for me. Whatever happens, it's not relevant to this discussion, imho, sorry Nobody Ent. Penyulap ☏ 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Penyulap, it's phrased that way because the template is only supposed to be used by the blocked party. Therefore, it is posted on their talkpage. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's where I put it. on their talkpage, but it goes on my talkpage doesn't it? Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't use it at all. The blocked editor may use it if they want to be unblocked. It is not appropriate for another user to request unblocking through those templates. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Of note, this is his response: "Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested"[89]

Obviously not interested in help, and does not care about the block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad you can join us halfway through, were now going in the same direction, it's just that little bit faster now. Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're going in the same direction at all. The user was offensive and does not care that he was blocked. There's nothing further to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested" actually means "I deeply care about my being blocked and promise I will never engage in such behavior again. Please unblock me." Remember, the user has limited knowledge of the English language. WP:AGF. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(illistration using some sarcasm, basically asking what do you expect?)Hmm I think they should be more like "Omg I am so sorry that I am upset that you have incorrectly blocked me in a biased manner, I so sorry, I not speak enwish, you aways right because wikipwedia is american, please block me some more because I not happy with your mistake" anything less should go indef. Penyulap ☏ 22:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

On a serious note, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with AGF which is not policy, this has to do with an admin with by his own admission little or no understanding of the editors variant blocking that editor based on his interpretation of that editors English. That IS against policy. (is there a policy along the lines of don't close your eyes and fire a gun randomly?) Penyulap ☏ 22:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking that Penyulap is now simply trolling? This is just getting too bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Penyulap realizes that the user called him an ass. In light of the rest of the information that came about here, I wouldn't be opposed to indef block, no talk page access, rather than the 3 month block in existence now (Contrary to my earlier comments). Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You may call me a troll, you may call me an ass, or you may indeed call me a troll's ass for good measure, I do not mind, I prefer the third. I see the same systemic problem that I saw with AndytheGrump recently, where the accused does his best to undermine wikipedia by refocusing the discussion upon his accuser.

I would suggest that, (using your own language and phrasing so you can understand with ease)

• You "obviously know too little English" to place blocks upon other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex language issues. You found an editor upon whom you placed a block as having "broken, almost incomprehensible English." and yet still resisted any advice on the matter from many other editors and admins.
• You've said "I am at a loss to understand why you would think the Please, Don't mind too part of Historiographer's edit is relevant to the block reasons." and resist any attempt by many people to help you understand why it IS relevant.
• You've said "some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried." and don't want to take advice from the people who can understand with some ease.
• You've said "Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them."
• You suggest that if an editor is capable of being misunderstood by someone else, they should be blocked

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that it is not the block which requires review, but your adminship that requires review. Penyulap ☏ 00:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Drop the stick, please. I'm no particular friend of FPaS, but you're way off base here, and doing yourself harm by continuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this has become a complete WP:BOOMERANG. Pen, you've made it clear you like to engage in some devil's advocacy and humor, but you never seem to know when to quit. You're really pushing people's patience with this act. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a current issue with Penyulap - inserting themself into situations where they are 100% policy unaware, and thus inflame the situation - often by encouraging the other editor to speak out more loudly and improperly. A couple of months ago we had another editor who got their wrist slapped for posted unblocks "on behalf of" editors - I'm going to have to go back and find out who it was (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, please be kind enough to keep your personal attack 100 % to yourself. Penyulap ☏ 14:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What personal attack? Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only person who finds Penyulap's behaviour peculiar. Somehow the quality of the trolling reminds me of Archtransit (talk · contribs) and socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

At first it seemed like someone who just won't quit to me, but some statements are so unreasonable that I think trolling could be a fair diagnosis. Egg Centric 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It’s a shame I caught this thread so late, as I think I could have prevented some of the fallout if I had seen it earlier. As an ESL teacher I deal with these kind of language issues every day, although admittedly with Japanese speakers and not Korean speakers. It would be easier for me to interpret the comment by Historiographer that started all of this if I spoke Korean in addition to speaking Japanese; however, the two languages still share many features, such as the lack of plurals and the way they use suffixes (particles) to modify words, so I can make a reasonable guess as to what's going on.

I would be grateful if a Korean speaker could check over this, but I think the true meaning of the comment by Historiographer that started this business is somewhere between Fut. Perf.’s strict interpretation and SPhilbrick’s lenient one. Here is what I think was intended:

Japanese users like Kusunose, who diminish the quality of Korea-related articles, always keep doing annoying things like that. In earlier times I also used to do the things you have done (here referring to the actions of 222.101.9.93 (talk)) against these troublesome Jjokbaries. However, there are no definitive answers to this problem due to the fact that (some) Anti-Korean Japanese users, who some people think are otaku (obsessive nerds, probably of the computer variety) with hikikomori (loner) tendencies, feel ecstasy when they bother Koreans. Please, pay no attention to them. The contents of Wikipedia are no longer the absolute truth, regardless of what Japanese hoaxes may be perpetrated on the site. See this link. (The link appears to be a site discussing Japanese people with a decidedly anti-Japanese point of view, but the Google translation isn’t too clear.) Nowadays, I just stop responding to the Japanese otaku when I see them. (The Korean bracketed text is an idiom which I can’t translate. The direct translation is something like “don’t throw any lead” – ‘lead’ as in the metal – whatever that means.) If you do this too, it will be a great help to you. Thanks for your passion in editing those articles.

This is subjective of course, so please take my interpretation with a pinch of salt. However, if I am right, then Historiographer looks less like a holy warrior who is out to insert The Truth into Wikipedia at all costs, and more like a user tired of edit wars who is giving out good advice to fellow Koreans. However, this does not excuse the racial slur “jjokbari”, and this user obviously has an anti-Japanese point of view that will prevent them from editing neutrally on Japanese topics. Claims of a battleground mentality are fair enough, as Historiographer is plainly seeing the topic area as one of “us versus them”.

In light of this interpretation, I don’t think Penyulap was off base with this AN thread, and I wouldn’t call their subsequent posts trolling. I think that their comments about Fut. Perf. were a bit over the line, however. A claim that someone's "adminship requires review" is a serious matter, and editors who make claims like this should be prepared to back them up with serious evidence. I also think the others in the discussion who criticised Historiographer have very good points. Although we should assume a degree of good faith about Historiographer’s comment due to their low language ability, we can’t just ignore the obvious racial slur and POV, and their subsequent caustic talk page comments. We must also bear in mind that competence is required – although I don't think we can reasonably say that a low English level by itself is disruptive, there is no denying that it makes it harder to contribute usefully here. On balance, I think Historiographer deserved to be blocked, although I think 3 months might be a bit harsh in light of my interpretation of their comment above. And Penyulap, it’s probably best to leave this one alone now, and go and do something relaxing. I suggest a nice long bath and some chocolate. :-) Sorry for the tl;dr everyone. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see that your paraphrase differs from mine in any particularly important way, so I can't really see how it would be the basis for a milder assessment of the situation. In particular, all the five points I listed in conclusion to my earlier paraphrase (further up in this thread) still apply under your reading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please understand that Penyulap is definitely not a troll, not is his intention to be trolling. Pen and I seem to understand each other pretty well (we have some attributes in common, heh!) Pen cares deeply when he sees something (I'm having real trouble hunting for the right words here, but our Aspie and Autie editors will understand it immediately) being considered from one angle (obvious to neurotypicals) and not being seen from an alternative (or possibly many alternative) angles. For the non-Autie types, it's a bit like a good musician hearing one of those god-awful electronic doorbells which cannot play a single tune in tune; or like an unscratchable itch, or someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard. Very often we can't "see" something the way other people can see it, but here's the other side of the coin: we "see" things, clearly, which other people miss. That works both ways. But please don't label Pen as a troll; he's very far from being one. Pesky (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, I apologise Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am not attempting to troll anyone. I do have an insatiable drive to be certain that editors can see just what is going on in situations where I clearly see hidden dynamics, so that the community as a whole can judge a situation for themselves 'without distortion and concealment' :). This has nothing whatsoever to do with you, this is a desire to see that everyone has the same 'level playing field'. I only 'persist' until all significant hidden dynamics have been exposed, or to put it another way, the stick is not to hurt anyone, it's just to uncover everything, once that is done, I do not care one iota for the stick or the discussion, as it is not my decision that has any meaning at all. In this case I have nothing else to add and no opinion on the matter whatsoever as there are experts aplenty. I apologise if our interaction has been painful for you, my intentions had nothing to do with you beyond examining motives of everyone concerned. Penyulap ☏ 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I briefly want to make a few points (I'm not a native Korean speaker but I do speak it and Korea is my field of expertise). Firstly, while there's probably a context here that I won't get on a cursory overview (though I have encountered the user's past edits while cleaning up Korea-related articles), the use of "jjokbari" should not be understood in the same light as racist remarks in English. Use of terms like jjokbari is pretty common among Koreans and is much milder than obvious racial slurs in English, and Korea itself is not a particularly "race-sensitive" society. Nationalism is hegemonic in Korea, so Koreans have a very different idea of what constitutes "NPOV". I don't mean this as some sort of relativist clarion call, I just wanted to add this since I think there's a danger of overlooking the cultural context here (I'm responding in particular to Future Perfect's remark about racial insensitivity meriting an indef block). (Stradivarius - I wouldn't get carried away with the Japanese/Korean similarities, sentence structures in Korean are actually very different to those of Japanese -- but in this case I think the meaning is pretty clear with or without grammatical interpolations.) I would be inclined to view his remarks as basically meaning "Don't let the Japanese trolls get you down". The parenthetical remark literally means "Don't throw bait" (don't trust Google Translate for Korean, their algorithms come up with some very bizarre translations for individual terms). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I like Google translate, but it hates me and calls me a Juggler, blah ! Penyulap ☏ 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, Tyrannus Mundi. Your comment makes a lot of sense. I also wanted to say one more thing about Historiographer's original comment. I think that he is only referring to a subset of Japanese users - i.e. the ones he says are "otaku" with "hikikomori" tendencies - not all Japanese users. I think the intention is easy to mistake here, as the whole comment starts with "Japanese users", and the qualifier "like Kusunose" is relatively far away, after a sub-clause, plus the punctuation is confusing. Two of the three other mentions of Japanese users in the comment are qualified directly, i.e. "Anti-Korean Japanese users" and "Japanese otaku", and I don't think the third, "Japanese hoax", can be assumed to refer to all Japanese users. Not that describing a subset of Japanese users rather than all Japanese users excuses the comment per se, but it does contrast with Fut. Perf.'s five points above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, a "Japanese [derogatory]" noun phrase is offensive enough to support some action, especially in a situation without the user providing his/her own mea culpa. It objectively expresses bias/antipathy based on nationality/ethnicity in the common language of the project, whatever the subjective intent maybe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

proposed ban duration of 14 days

Discussion of the matter appears to have concluded. Suggested alternatives to the current block include indefinite banning, a week, less than a week, a warning rather than a block, and a trip to WQA, with the most frequently referred to duration being a week.

Propose changing the block duration to 14 days. Penyulap ☏ 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the block from indef until the editor him/herself requests it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In looking at the possible flaws of unblocking policy and guidelines, I've come across some approaches to justice which are strange, at least to me. I need to think some more on this. Lolz, I shoved the article into wikipedia space by mistake, I'm such a goof.Penyulap ☏ 09:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi: Still community banned?

• Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10#Tobias Conradi
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi#Log of blocks and bans
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive82#Tobias Conradi
• TZ master (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Help with numerous new pages being created by copy/paste from another
  • "Massive attack by User:RobertMfromLI"
  • "Attacks by random users and bots"
  • "Fastily should be de-admined."
• Royaume du Maroc (talk · contribs)
  • "Note to user:bazonka: LISTEN! Even Arabs can speak English!"

Is Tobias Conradi still community banned? I ask because of the AFD discussions of Time in Illinois (AfD discussion) and Daylight saving time in Germany (AfD discussion). It's been confirmed by CheckUser that Tobias Conradi was still extensively sockpuppetting up to August 2011 and that Time in Russia (talk · contribs) is one of many Tobias Conradi sockpuppets. The article histories of Time in the Czech Republic, America/Indiana/Knox, America/Cuiaba, America/Kentucky/Louisville, and some others make it fairly clear that there's a little walled garden of articles that only Tobias Conradi is interested in as anything other than redirects, and strongly indicate that the pattern of creating multiple new accounts has continued since August 2011 and that Royaume du Maroc is one of several more Tobias Conradi accounts.

Which brings me back to the question:

• Does the community consider the Tobias Conradi ban from five years ago to be still in force?
• If so, what does the community want to do with the walled garden of TZ-database-related articles that only these accounts have ever edited (other than as redirects to the actual articles for the cities and countries indicated) at all?

Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tobias Conradi is still banned, yes; that's been reaffirmed in several discussions over the last couple of years. As to what to do with the articles, I'll notify the users who are usually chasing after him, they'll probably have some ideas. But leaving them be is almost certainly not what to do, given the mess that some of his socks (especially TigreTiger) created. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
• There was a tremendous amount of disruption he caused between June-August on India geo articles, last thing we need is for him to return now! —SpacemanSpiff 19:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Return"? From the sockpuppet investigations page, it appears that xe never left. You do know that Royaume du Maroc has been active within the past 12 hours, yes? Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I haven't exactly followed Tobias' career here, I was only briefly involved when he started working on India geo articles. Quite honestly, I don't know enough about his editing interests to make a judgment call on the above. But I have experienced enough of his disruptive nature to know that he's a net negative. —SpacemanSpiff 08:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, I think it would probably be pretty obvious if Tobias's ban were lifted. I really doubt such behavior as indicated above is at all likely to change that situation, either. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So what's your view on what to do with the walled garden? Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • They won't stand as individual articles (what is notable about a time zone anyway?) so just merge them into a "Time in the <country/region>" sort of omnibus article. Blackmane (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Tobias Conradi is the creator (and in a few cases sole editor, under various sockpuppet guises) of many of the "Time in …" articles. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, there's an AfD open on one of the Time-by-state articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time in Illinois. (I don't know anything about the Tobias situation — I was reading other noticeboard stuff and noticed the Time-by-state articles being mentioned.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I know. That's why this noticeboard section exists in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Aren't any of the Tobias trackers active currently? —SpacemanSpiff 05:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I guess not. What probably should be done is here to have someone file yet another SPI requeset. While the evidence above is certainly good, I'm not sure in and of itself it is necessarily enough to confirm sockpuppetry. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The evidence above isn't all of the evidence, by any means. Looking at the contributions of the checkuser-confirmed accounts listed in the SPI report, I noticed that there are three tell-tales that Tobias Conradi has. The first is the stuff that xe was community banned for: rudeness and inability to see other people's actions as anything other than "attacks". The second is a focus on a particular set of subjects and on the spellings and punctuations of place/region/personal names. The third I won't explain because it is very revealing, and if I say what it is Tobias Conradi will stop doing it. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Good lord. When he first went crazy and was banned, I never expected him to haunt the joint for the better part of a decade. --Golbez (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just noticed this thread. As one of the users who's dealt with his socks before I'm confident they're him and have blocked accordingly. A sleeper check is definitely warranted given the abundance of sleepers in the past and the current gaps in editing from the known socks. Just filing a SPI. Dpmuk (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I can fill in some of the gaps. Timeineurope (talk · contribs) is clearly a sockpuppet, as it has two out of the three Tobias Conradi tell-tales. TimeCurrency (talk · contribs) only has one out of the three tell-tales, but I strongly suspect it to be a sockpuppet. I have similar strong suspicions of TimeOfChange (talk · contribs) and TimeCodex (talk · contribs) although they only display one of the tell-tales.

      And Tobias Conradi was back within less than 1 day of your block and is now TimeZoneEditor (talk · contribs).

      Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I've unfortunately just encountered this critter. I created some and edited some other "Time in state" articles for the purpose of specifying exactly which counties (or other divisions) are in which time zones. He jumped on it at the same time, apparently prompted by my email to the tz list (on which he is apparently similarly disruptive). For some of them, it was trivial, and originally fit in a couple one-liners in the main Time in the United States article, but others were complex enough to warrant (I feel) their own article. Additionally, this allows space for a map, addressing history and unofficial observances, DST, etc. (see Time in Indiana for an example). Such articles additionally carry the Category:state to make them part of that state's collection of articles, which seems useful. As the only other editor of these, please allow me a few days to clean up what's there before deciding on whether/where to merge. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not so much the "Time in …" articles but what you'll find in Category:IANA time zone database/Category:tz database that is the major problem. These are a set of pretty much non-subjects that used to be redirects to the cities and geographic locations that they indicate, but that Conradi has expanded into the likes of America/Boise (which used to simply redirect to Boise, Idaho). Those would benefit greatly from people's attention.

    The problem with the "Time in …" articles is that they overlap the the "Daylight saving time in …" articles. You'll notice that for many of those, Tobias Conradi created both articles, using different sockpuppets (and sometimes the same sockpuppet). (Time in Argentina was created by Tobias Conradi and Daylight saving time in Argentina was created by TZ master, for example. Witness the similar Time in Ukraine and Daylight saving time in Ukraine.)

    Merging all of the "Daylight saving time in …" articles into the equivalent "Time in …" articles, renaming when there isn't one of the latter, would also probably help. (Note that some mergers are going to be trivial to nonexistent, since Tobias Conradi created them as splits in the first place. For example: Xe created Time in Norway as Tobias Conradi, and split it out to Daylight saving time in Norway as TZ master. The original text is in the original article's edit history and can be hoisted from there without any merger needed at all.)

    Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

Resolved by motion that:

FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

This is not the place to argue your case. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please note the above statement is false and is subject of a new amendment. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC). You mean "[you contend that] the new finding-of-fact is false and is subject of a new amendment". The statement here - notification that the Arbitration Committee has resolved a finding-of-fact with the wording given - is entirely true. Happy‑melon 23:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Indeed, the FoF is untrue, not the fact that it has been adopted. That, sadly for us all, is true. Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

1 revert proposal for circumcision

I would like to propose a 1 revert rule limit on the circumcision article. This article has had more edit wars than many other articles which are currently on a 1rr restriction. This edit warring has also been a long term problem stretching back to 2003. The talk page is full of disputes and theres no sign of concurrence anywhere on the horizon. This dispute has carried over to multiple noticeboards and over the past year alone possibly two dozen editors have been involved in some form of dispute about various issues. I have edited thousands of articles, but circumcision is possibly the most extreme example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND page I have seen thus far.

What makes this situation more urgent is the endless debates and RfC's have mostly led nowhere and most editors to the article are completely polarized in their opinions. Some disccusions go on for for weeks and months and at the end there is not an agreement in the slightest. Some of the disputes have escalated into personal attacks and it gets ugly often. There are even edit wars on the circumcision talk page.

A 1rr would be helpful because the page protection will expire in 9 days and the vandals and most aggressive editors will no longer gain a foothold over the article. I think a 1RR restriction is way overdue. Pass a Method talk 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The ongoing battles are problematic and by limiting the reversions it is hoped that they may confine themselves to discussion on the talk page to reach consensus rather than reverting.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Possible support For how long do you propose this 1RR? I'm inclined to support the idea for 6 months, or another fixed term. I don't like articles to have such restrictions (and never as an indef), but this article would justify the limited use of such restrictions due to the failed WP:DRN (Lack of anyone outside participating) and other issues that have plagued it for some time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think 18 or 24 months would be good, but any length would be better than none. 6 months is probably too short since the edit warring will just resume afterwards. The history shows fierce edit-warring dating back to 2003. Its best to let an uninvolved admin decide. Pass a Method talk 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would be ok with 18 months if that is what the consensus agreed to. Just not indef, you have to have an end date, then it can be reviewed at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an indef would be too much. Pass a Method talk 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment can I suggest instead (or, perhaps, as well) adopting WP:BRD as a requirement for the article? My reasoning is that edit wars at this article often (though not always) involve multiple editors, each of whom make relatively few reverts a day. 1RR would not solve this problem. Nor would it solve the underlying problem of inability to reach consensus: most editors are usually quite willing to engage in discussion as things are, indicating that problems are not arising due to lack of discussion. The real problem that we face is when BRD becomes BRDRDRDRD..., and that could be solved simply by stopping after the first revert, then negotiating consensus. Jakew (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD can't be forced so easily, as it is still only an essay (there have been discussions to make it policy, but no consensus). A 1RR is basically a tool that forces editors to follow WP:BRD (ironically), and assuming the admin on call is wise enough to simply revert back and force to the talk page instead of instablocking them, then it works. 1RR isn't "the solution", it is just one tool towards a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If we can make it de facto policy that editors shouldn't systematically add or remove "British Isles", then surely we can make it policy that BRD should be followed at one article? My concern is that, while 1RR might make a small difference, it comes at the cost of discouraging casual edits (since it's easy to partially revert by accident) and makes ordinary maintenance more difficult. It seems far more sensible to me to actually solve the problem that's causing the edit wars. And the problem occurs when editor A makes an edit, editor B reverts it, editor C reverts that revert, and so on. 1RR doesn't do anything to help this situation (it doesn't even prevent it if editors A and C are the same). To heavily paraphrase, BRD says don't revert a revert unless there's consensus: editor C (and A and B) should discuss instead. That prevents an edit war; in fact, it's impossible to have an edit war if it is followed. Jakew (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Enforcing BRD wouldn't change the scenario you mentioned. A third party could still revert before we get to the D part, putting us in the exact same spot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. To try a related idea, can you see anything wrong with the following proposal: i) bold (but sensible) editing continues to be encouraged. ii) any revert (except for standard exceptions like vandalism, etc.) must be accompanied by an explanation detailed enough to understand the problem, preferably on the talk page. iii) editors must not revert a revert, unless consensus exists to do so. iv) where there is doubt, uninvolved admins may be called upon to decide whether there is consensus to apply (iii). Jakew (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Strikes me as a bit too bureaucratic and easy to game. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per my above statement. Pass a Method talk 05:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note regarding "per nom"--actually this !voter is the nom. On first glance I mistakenly read this as an additional !vote of support of the nom's proposal before I realized that this was not the case. Pass a Method, could I ask you to please change how you have phrased this edit so that others do not make the same mistake I did? Thanks. Zad68 14:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Pass a Method's characterization of this article as one of the worst WP:BATTLEGROUNDs on Wikipedia. The 1RR idea is well-intentioned but it ends up not addressing the real problem, and advantaging the "side" with the better puppet and/or off-Wiki canvassing campaign, which is an active and important factor here. I need some time to finish the research I need to do to support this, please give me a day or so. Zad68 14:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's techincally not the worst place for battlegrounds on Wikipedia, that being articles to do with the Balkans, which is peculiar because that area has never caused any trouble for the rest of the world and its inhabitants have always lived in peace and harmony - however it is possibly the oddest battleground in terms of the "stakes", which on a rational level, as much as I hate mutilating infants for no reason, are pretty low (I have to accept that most of them turn out not to mind, despite my super-important moral principles) Egg Centric 16:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support While I support this I really feel that this should be decided by uninvolved editors/admins. I would even go as far as a topic ban for certain editors and volunteer myself if that helps even things out. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, gary, if you support this proposal can you please highlight support or so it will be easier to count? Thanks. As for an uninvolved admin, yes any admins who have been involved in this article won't be able to close this thread. Pass a Method talk 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant it seems kind of pointless for regular users who watch the page to vote here however it is interesting to see who votes for this and their explanations. For me I simply feel it will cut down on edit warring in the short term but I still feel that nothing less than a topic ban will be necessary to clear the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Gary, as other users have pointed out this might end up at WP:RFAR. But lets wait and see how this plays out. Pass a Method talk 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Having given this some more thought, I don't think this is the right solution for the article. It will probably lead to a small reduction in reverts but, as noted above, edit wars at this article tend to involve multiple parties, which it doesn't address. I think it would cause more harm than good. Zad68's observation that this would make off-Wiki canvassing campaigns (which are already problematic) more effective is persuasive, too. Jakew (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection can be used if there is a large increase in SPA's participating in bad faith ways. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been any recent canvassing so your concerns are invalid. Even if there was canvassing, several editors have the article on their watchlist so it would be easy to deal with. Pass a Method talk 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - this will do absolutely nothing to fix the underlying problems (which I don't at all deny exist). This page is going to end up at RfA one day because the two sides are never going to agree. This is completely pointless Egg Centric 16:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be really interesting to see the article Circumcision end up at WP:RFA, where the community would decide whether the article should be granted admin privileges! Although I think you meant WP:RFAR, request for arbitration. Zad68 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It would get my vote, it's not afraid to cut right to the tip of the issue. Egg Centric 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha a quote worthy of Baseball Bugs. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I've generally stayed far away from this article because of the polarization. This would help stabilize it a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support It might calm the inflamed passions over there. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article has a history of off-wiki canvassing of WP:SPAs (some examples) and sock/meatpuppetry by people attempting to push a particular point of view (some examples) and implementing 1RR will play directly into the hands of people involved in sock/meatpuppetry and canvassing. What the article needs more of is an acceptance of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines, especially as relates to tendentious medical articles, and less use as a political tool to propagate one side or another. -- Avi (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There are enough eyes on this article to handle any possible SPA's. Furthermore, very few SPA's have actually edited the article recently so i dont see where you're coming from. Pass a Method talk 20:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Then we agree to disagree for now. For what it is worth, I believe there have been Joe Circus attempts in the past three months, but I may be misremembering. -- Avi (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe Circus has not been seen on the article for ages nor have there been any other recent socks on the article this year. Pass a Method talk 21:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method, please keep in mind that Avi has access to the checkuser, and according to a user rights report, neither you nor I do... I'll have to go by what Avi says in this area. 21:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

...but I am glad that you agree that we should indeed be concerned about socks of Joe Circus or other banned users editing the article. Thank you. Zad68 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont need access to checkuser to notice there hasn't been any new socking this year, because there hasn't according to article history. Pass a Method talk 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

PaM is correct that JoeC did not attempt to edit Circumcision or its talk page in months (since November 2011, I believe), but he was seen earlier this year trying to get around the block both through open proxies and canvassing. Regardless, this does not affect my opinion that the past history of organized sock/meatpuppetry and canvassing would make this a bad idea. Furthermore, as pointed out below, the issue here is not one of reversions without discussion; there is plenty of discourse. The problem is reversions despite discussions, disagreements on proper implementation of Wikipedia policy and guideline—both global and project—and disagreement on what is considered the best sources to use. Implementing 1RR will not help that issue. -- Avi (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe socks User:Wimp O'pede and User:Chevara (as well as a number of obvious IP socks) and TipPt sock User:Pyrlights have both edited this year. Jakew (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I think the temptation to revert others is so immediate therer's no other solution. Robert B19 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment A few support !votes have comments suggesting 1RR "may confine [editors] to discussion on the talk page to reach consensus rather than reverting," or "would help stabilize it a bit", or "might calm the inflamed passions." My understanding is that 1RR is helpful in situations where editors are simply reverting each other without talking. This is not the case at this article, so the symptoms thought to be behind the reasons given for these !votes aren't matching the real problem. There is a lot of talking--I remember someone researched it and found Talk:Circumcision to be in the top-20 largest article Talk archives out there. What isn't happening is productive talking, which a 1RR won't fix. And as Avi and I have pointed out, off-Wiki canvassing is an issue. 1RR seems like a solution to a different kind of problem than the ones we're having at this article. Zad68 21:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• oppose Per Zad's remarks above which are quite convincing. Having occasionally edited on this article set (but finding the general environment unpleasant), it seems like an accurate assessment. 1RR is not going to really help much here. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've mostly avoided this article because of the edit-warring, but it's obvious organized groups of people are coming here from outside forums and hoping this restriction will allow them to outnumber all opponents. This "solution" has been crafted specifically to help them. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. There hasn't been any canvassing this year and before that was a long time ago. If you're going to come up with a reason to oppose, at least give a reason thats valid today, not one that was valid a few years ago. Remember that all these votes that are irrelevant to today won't be counted unless you give it substance. Pointing to canvassing that took place in 2010 makes your vote null. Pass a Method talk 01:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

On the 16th of January I was advised of canvassing at Reddit. User:Therewillbefact was responsible for it. User:Robert B19 admitted to being recruited this way. Jakew (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, please strike your allegation that I "admitted to being recruited". Robert B19 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But there haven't been any actual edits on the article this year though. Pass a Method talk 08:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct. If we look at Robert B19's contributions (not because I wish to pick on him, but just because we know that he was recruited off-site), he's made eleven article edits. So there is absolutely no doubt that off-site canvassing has resulted in article edits this year. Jakew (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As noted above, this is a solution in search of a problem. The meat of the problem with the environment of the article is not edit warring by individual editors, but prolonged POV pushing by WP:SPA editors (many of whom either started or became "active" again in 2012) that are POV pushing against established policy and guidelines. I fear this restriction will only encourage a resumption of meatpuppetry that has historically been a problem. Yobol (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to any new SPA's from 21012? Coz as far as i'm aware there haven't been any. Pass a Method talk 06:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What about User:Robert B19? Account created 2012-01-22, and all 64 of his edits relate to circumcision. Jakew (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, that's a non-issue. Per, "single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles," you're the same category, Robert B19 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

user:Therewillbefact is also an WP:SPA new to 2012. This, of course, ignores the 4 or 5 other "new" editors who had made minimal contributions elsewhere who suddenly became "active" again in 2012 and are also SPAs since their arrival to this topic. Yobol (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

While my account is roughly six months old, I am not an SPA. I've made contributions to over a dozen articles. I appreciate the allegation, though. FactoidDroid (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issue here isn't random edit-warring, but as Avi and Zad68 point out, edit-warring by SPA editors who do not understand policy, and are drawn here by off-Wikipedia campaigns. The Wiki article is discussed on several circumcision websites and one of the current editors is viciously attacked on CircLeaks. This measure would be unduly punitive on the limited number of experienced and motivated editors. Ankh.Morpork 08:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Like i said above, there haven't been any new SPA edits this year. Also there are several article watchers which mean it won't be a problem. Pass a Method talk 08:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. 1RR may well help to reduce the edit-warring here. Despite Zad68's concerns, I think that 1RR is unlikely to cause harm. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—from my experience in other contentious areas, 1RR does not solve any problems and just gives a new technical reason for opposing sides to wikilawyer. I'm sure there's a better way to solve this dispute, and as far as I can tell, most of the regular methods have not been exhausted. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose- the only way to enforce a 1RR is to make any group making similar edits (or reverting the same) be tagged as socks - whether they are or aren't - otherwise the state of the article will necessarily be whichever side touches it last, all of which is counter to the collaborative and verifiability policies that underline the Wiki. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Vote tally

• Proposal #1 (1RR alone):

• Support = 8: Pass a Method, Berean Hunter, Dennis Brown, Garycompugeek, SarekOfVulcan, AvocadosTheorem, Robert B19, Axl
• Oppose = 10: Zad68, Jakew, Egg Centric, Avraham, JoshuaZ, Plot Spoiler, Yobol, AnkhMorpork, Ynhockey, Carlossuarez46

• Proposal #2 (1RR + edit history restrictions)

• Support = 6: Zad68, Yobol, Jmh649, Pass a Method, Dennis Brown, AnkhMorpork
• Oppose = 4: Egg Centric, Carlossuarez46, Avraham, Kilopi
• Non-!voting comments from: Garycompugeek, 184.38.43.39 ("Collateral Damage")

Voting counts redone by Zad68 02:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• supports 1 - 8 votes
• supports 2 - 4 vote

FOOBAR!*opposes - 9 votes Pass a Method talk 06:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC) struck out replaced above byZad68 02:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you combining supports for the revision with the original proposition? -- Avi (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm counting only 7 supports above. Yobol (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Avi, yes i am, but without doubles. Pass a Method talk 22:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would want to combine totals for two completely separate proposals? Yobol (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Both proposals are for a 1rr, so they are not really all that diferent. As you can see i support both proposals. Pass a Method talk 23:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding?? Did you notice I Oppose the plain 1RR but Support 1RR + edit history restrictions? Haven't you been reading the discussions on this? Zad68 23:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay i will reword it Pass a Method talk 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, my computer has been really fucked up lately Pass a Method talk 01:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I went ahead and finished the !vote cleanup/clarification you started. Honestly I think this exercise of maintaining a !vote count is largely pointless, as we all know it's not a vote and this isn't a democracy. It's not like there are so many votes that a closing admin couldn't count them all at that time, and it isn't even the count that matters but rather the persuasiveness of the arguments. Zad68 02:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal to "1 revert proposal for circumcision:" Add minimum edit history restriction

Trying to come up with a creative way to meet everyone's concerns, I propose some additional restrictions to go along with the 1RR:

• After the current full-protect expires, the article should go back to the semi it had before
• The usual exceptions for reverts of obvious vandalism, copyvios, BLP violations, banned users, etc. should be in place
• In addition to the 1RR, there should be a minimum edit history required to edit the article. For example, account creation no more recent than 3 months ago, and a minimum edit count of 500 some number of edits in the article mainspace.

I think this would address the concerns about off-Wiki canvassing. I don't think the minimum edit history restriction is technically impossible or unprecedented. Wasn't that considered (if not implemented) for articles in the MMA area? Thoughts? Zad68 22:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, decent editors should be allowed to get involved from the outset. If for no other than it's an article that causes huge burnout. I think SPAs can be fairly easily dealt with by a "know em when we see em" procedure. I assume you get spam from the nutty IP? Have you ever thought it was a legit user? Egg Centric 22:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Zad, your proposal for minimum edits of 500 is pretty crazy. Thats some unprecedented newbie abuse your proposing. If i was you i would strike it out per "WP:Please do not bite the newcomers". Pass a Method talk 23:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The 500-edit redline isn't so "unprecedented" as you may think. See the arbitration notice at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh for an example. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't think the overall idea of adding an edit history restriction to 1RR is a bad one. Would you please suggest an appropriate minimum number? I noticed that before you had asked me if I support 1RR now (you seem to have removed that in a subsequent edit), and I'd like to answer: Yes, I'm willing to support 1RR. I support the idea of 1RR in general, it is along the same lines as Jakew's proposal that WP:BRD be made policy on this page. I just do not think it will help the problems that we are experiencing at this article. I don't think it'll help. but I don't think it will hurt, either, if we can address the concerns that myself and Avi and others have expressed. What is your suggestion? Zad68 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this proposal carries a lot of merit. On long-term controversial articles, what we want are experienced users that know how to apply policy and guidelines rather than new and inexperienced editors, many of whom are agenda driven WP:SPA editors. Yobol (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is the last place we want new editors starting. They would be driven away for sure.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I'm okay with a mimimum of 3 months edits and the rest, but without the 500 limit because some editors make only content edits which makes it difficult for them to get edit counts. 400 is more realistic. Pass a Method talk 11:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support but policing this is going to be more difficult than 1RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I am in favor of some form of minimum editing requirement to prevent off-Wiki canvassing which is readily identifiable.Ankh.Morpork 14:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While there have been some attempts at off wiki canvassing and the usual SPA drive by, the page is watched by so many that nothing ever gets through for more than a few minutes before it is reverted so this is truly a moot point. Are we seriously worried that a group of newbies are going to show up and hi jack the article because it has never happened in the 5 years I have watched the article. I still think regulars should be excluded from this voting is because it's going to be a party line vote with one or two exceptions. The real reason this article's sorely lacking W:NPOV and has continuous edit wars is User:Jakew,one of circumcision staunchest supporters, has the most edits to the article far surpassing anyone else. His tendentious editing contributes with a pattern of systematic bias that is easily uncovered over a period of time. He also runs a pro circumcision website and has published papers with Morris on the benifits of circumcision. Many calls by myself and others that this is a clear case of WP:COI have fell on deaf ears. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I could provide several links evidencing off-Wiki campaigns, only I am fearful of personally attacking an editor by linking to a disgusting diatribe about this editor. In fact, on this website, the very point that you are currently making about a potential COI is discussed and a wiki COI link is provided... Ankh.Morpork 14:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense is right. I never stated their were not off wiki campaigns only that they are quite ineffective. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gary, attempts to conflate POV with COI have failed in the past, and trying to discredit Jake, whose patience borders on the superhuman and who has been subject to the most vile and disgusting attacks by various genital integtritist sites is neither appropriate nor acceptable. Multiple times it has been the consensus of uninvolved editors that Jake has edited completely and totally within the bounds of our policies and guidelines; more than can be said for many people who are attempting to use the article to promote a genital-integritist agenda. Bringing up this improper conflation of POV (which we all have) and COI, which means that someone is incapable of editing from a wikipedia-neutral perspective, only serves to WP:HARASS Jake and should not be continued. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Put your shield down Avi, I know I can count on you to come to Jake's defense. I'll not debate this with you (add nauseum). As you say let's just agree to disagree. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/DefendEachOther. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Collateral Damage. Many people don't want to be associated professionally or by name with this intimate, embarrassing topic. They prefer to contribute from an IP address. 184.38.43.39 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, heavy nonconstructive editing from IPs at both the article and its Talk page have made it necessary to disallow IP edits. Your concern is easily addressed, of course, by creating an account with a username that does not reveal either your profession or name. Also, you could leave a User Talk message for a like-minded editor suggesting edits to be made and sources to be added. By the way, this request seems misplaced here--neither 1RR proposal is suggesting to return the article back to unprotected once it comes off the full it's at right now. You might try submitting your request for unprotection by following the procedures at WP:RFUP, but I would not hold out much hope for it happening. Zad68 21:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wrong approach - "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that any experienced Wikipedian can edit?" Nooooooo. What we need is a hard core limit that any edit which hasn't been discussed and consensus achieved is prohibited. Any edit that has previously been discussed and rejected earns a topic ban for some period of time. The vandalism gets tiresome and more or less gets quickly fixed; what ends up being the real waste of time is the repeated contentions that have been discussed over-and-over-and-over-and-over. Yes, consensus can change, but I think it's incumbent upon the purveyor of the rehash to show that first before serving it up again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

People have strong opinions. Doesn't make them wrong; doesn't make them right. Having read the article and the talk page (though not the history), I can see that there are some very strongly-held opinions by many editors, and none of them want to back down from their strongly-held positions. Both sides of the debate have some measure of truth to their opinions; it's a shame that neither side seems able to recognize the truth of the other side's position.Marikafragen (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, I like the idea of simply requiring discussion and consensus before editing. It's harsh, and it would be an inconvenience, but it would probably be worth it, as it would actually solve the real problem. Jakew (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose For similar reasons as first suggestion in that I do not beleive it will address the underlying problems properly. -- Avi (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's that bad, just use full protection and make everybody use the talk page. If an editor has the technical ability to edit the page, they deserve to have the edit evaluated on its merit, not the tenure of their account. Kilopi (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• oppose per Kilopi. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

• Hi, I just deleted The Odd Saga of the American and a Curious Icelandic Flock as an expired PROD and stumbled across User:DM232/sandbox, which redirects to the deleted page. Should the userspace redirect be deleted (I note that user space is exempt from G8)? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I personaly would have deleted as housekeeping in particular as the creator of the redirect is not the user himself but an admin who fixed a cut and paste move (see also backlinks). But you could always alert Anthony to delete it himself. Agathoclea (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Done I have just deleted User:DM232/sandbox, it had only 1 edit, which was a redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please determine consensus and close COIN discussion

This COIN discussion has been going on for 22 days and any COI evidence presented has long since been reviewed. I participated in that discussion and can't also close it. COIN doesn't have anything set up to routinely close such discussions. Seems that the COIN board will continue to be used until Toresbe is driven from the project or his attention diverted away from editing in mainspace. That isn't right. Would some admin be so kind as to determine consensus and close that COIN discussion. In your close, please comment on whether Toresbe has a conflict of interest and, especially, whether editors can post templates related to Toresbe and conflict of interest and whether such templates can be removed. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can COI discussions be closed only by administrators? (Wikipedia:Non-admin closure deals mostly with deletion discussions and so is silent on the matter, though it's not a policy or guideline anyway.) If not I would be happy to review the entire section and close it later today. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

COIN discussions aren't normally WP:CLOSEd by anyone. (Which doesn't mean that you can't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) by Remedy 18 of the Climate change case ("A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (2)

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 11.6 of the Climate change case ("ChrisO topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

In anyone else having this problem?

I'm one of those weirdos who can't stand the Vector skin and kept Monobook. I dunno if that matters but all of a sudden I noticed my Twinkle buttons are all gone and when I clicked on my Preferences the Gadgets tab is missing. Anyone else having the same problem? Did I miss something? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got a lot of code in your monobook.js page. I'd try clearing it temporarily. If the problem corrects, you'll know something in that code is causing it. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:22, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC) 18:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind -- see WP:VPT#Gadgets all AWOL. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:22, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC) 18:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Wish I could remember where to look for that stuff. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about sanctions of JJB and Dmcq

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

---

• NOTE see request to close at bottom of discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

An editor I have sanctioned has raised a concern.[90]. At a recent ANI, I directed two editors to discontinue editing WP:SS, as it appeared they were edit warring and they both appeared to have a conflict of interest, as the guideline was a central theme in the debate. Rather than rehash the entire event, I would just link it here [91]. It would appear that DGG and thumperward (Chris Cunningham), who later Fully Protected the page). Other editors implied agreement, even if the discussion wasn't fully format and put to a vote, and they have been notified of this discussion. I have asked previously for comment by others in the ANI. As my actions may have been in good faith but not necessarily within the letter of authority, I present it here for discussion, both the solution to the ongoing edit warring and conflict, as well as my participation and actions. I maintain that the integrity of the system must be protected, and that no editor that is currently in a heated battle that depends primarily on a particular policy, should ever go and change the meaning of that policy/guideline, or edit it in any substantial way during the ongoing dispute. This, and the edit warring that Chris protected for, is the basis for my common sense actions, rather than rote recital of any particular policy authorizing such. The ANI was brought forth by Dmcq, who appears to agree with the decision (even if it was a bit of a boomerang). John J. Bulten disagrees with the decision on several grounds. Here I present it for formal consideration, in the proper venue. In the interest of fairness, I also opened up a section for discussion of my actions in this event, and would consider the community's consensus as the final word in this as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's make clear that the only thing I was opining on when protecting the page was that edit warring on it wasn't acceptable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have refactored my comments above as not to imply anything by you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the dispute, but given the facts as recited, the word "directed" seems unfortunate at best. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Proposal that John J. Bulten and Dmcq be topic banned from editing WP:SS as long as the MMA dispute is ongoing.

• Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Proposing a close, see bottom of discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Dennis, thank you for informing me. My essential point is that I already voluntarily stopped editing the page when you asked, so when you started calling it a ban after the fact I objected to the apparent reading as if there were community support for a real sanction. Dmcq need not have been "banned" or asked to stop either, as Dmcq was not even involved in MMA until told that it was indirectly related. Accordingly, I politely request that Dennis strike the word "ban". JJB 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC) @Masem, I recognize that I am now being misperceived as trying to change policy and to bring the question to several pages in my attempts to find a resolution between two hostile camps. While I disagree, I am certainly able to not edit the pages in question while the situation cools down, to demonstrate good faith to those editors who I believe misunderstood me. I was hoping that, as someone who previously improved several of these policies without any ax to grind and who believed he was doing so again, I could find a few other experts who could provide the necessary input: and on the edit dispute in question, I was demonstrably not "changing policy", but merely copying sentences from one guideline into another, which Dmcq claimed to be synthesis but without showing where the synthesis logically arises at any point. The VPP discussion is for the good, and I am happy to wait to see how my input is received. JJB 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• (the comment to which this replies may have moved:) Thanks; review is good. I should also repeat that Dmcq's concerns had nothing whatsoever to do with MMA, as he was not invited into the loop until it was mentioned (by Hasteur) long after WP:SS was in discussion; and that the "MMA dispute is ongoing" for about 5 years now by my count. Accordingly, banning Dmcq from a page he was harmoniously editing without any relation to a longstanding dispute that he made comments on only later, indefinitely until that dispute is no longer "ongoing" by whatever definition, does seem like an unnecessary tarring of everything with the MMA brush. Since there is no plan whatsoever for the MMA dispute to cease its "ongoing", I think efforts should be directed toward finding one (as I was doing). I do not have time to watch this page today. JJB 19:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Finally, though Dennis's reading of the support of others appears a bit assumptive and undiffed, I believe Dennis's action appears directly contradictory to the significant view of this editor. JJB 19:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• This entire MMA thing is getting spread out into so many different policies areas by just a few editors. I wouldn't limit it to SS, but WP:N, WP:NSPORTS, and - well, actually, pretty much any guideline/policy page. They should be free to say "hey, experts on this policy, can you help provide input on this policy on the RFC for MMA?" on the policy talk page to garner interest, but not try to carry on separate discussions on the individual talk pages to change that policy to bring it into support or to prove their point on the MMA process. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• If only there was some administrators with backbones that could come in and deal with the instigators of WikiDrama that are currently specializing in MMA articles. Fair Disclosure: I am hip deep in the drama and may be causing some myself, but my intentions are to make the articles conform to the standards. I accept any chastisement or censure that experienced editors wish to direct my way. Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Is this a support, oppose, or does this belong in the discussion section? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Moved and did some refactoring to reflect this (as this section wasn't there when I posted).

  As to what this is, it is a proposal to expand the topic ban to any policy/guideline page as long as the MMA aspects are undergoing review. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• It really makes no sense to topic ban editors for working on what everyone agreed at VPP was a problem that's the rule as practiced across all of wiki rather than the exception, just because it might affect some other areas. That's rather equivalent to saying that we should ban attempts at all related solutions because it might touch on a small subset of what it's trying to resolve. As for the MMA-centric part of it, this is apparently the current state of things after months of unilateral editing. Given the reception, using that as a template for similar wiki-wide entry sets seems ill-advised. Agent00f (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments regarding Dennis Brown's conduct

• As my goal was to prevent two editors from editing the page, while still allowing others to continue editing, I welcome comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• As I told Dennis, cold-reverting the page back a couple weeks in history removed a number of improvements that were not disputed by any editor, and this has been recognized by another admin restoring the most recent (Dmcq's) version. (I accept this version for discussion because it neatly limits the dispute to the question of inclusion of 2 sentences, which can easily (?) be worked out between Dmcq and myself on the talk page during the protection period.) Accordingly, my only real conduct concern is the confusion between a request not to edit and a community-approved ban, and the cold revert. Other odd questions about Dennis's conduct, like these two named, need not result in further drama. I have corrected my initials in the subhead above. JJB 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My apologies for the initials being wrong. Once your brought up the issue, I felt it was best to move it here quickly. During the whole process, I have openly invited scrutiny of my actions, and still do. Even if out of formality, or relying on WP:IAR, at the time I maintain that it seemed the best solution, and think it still is. It isn't personal as I do like you, but my rushed decision was based on protecting the integrity of our guidelines while doing the least collateral damage. If I had protected the page instead, I likely would have reverted back to that same diff, as to not give either editor an "advantage". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Easily worked out? If you could even have kept the business to the centralized discussion at VPP never mind everything else that happened I wouldn't have gone to AN/I. No thanks, I think I'll wait till the MMA business is dealt with and see if you're still interested then. Dmcq (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It's true that there was some confusion while Dmcq continued to discuss the changes to WP:SS at VPP rather than at WP:SS talk, while I responded on both pages to keep both discussions in context. I have never comprehended Dmcq's strong aversion to discuss WP:SS at WP:SS, repeated here. But to deal with this comment in context, I have no problem letting the discussion be tabled for a reasonable period, just so long as it's not the meaningless "MMA business is dealt with" crystal-ball event. If, however, Dmcq is inviting me to continue assisting in working toward MMA resolution, that can be accommodated too. JJB 19:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • To be clear, my concern is that anyone in a dispute that might be using a guideline, shouldn't edit that guideline. I would also add that editors or admins should not make substantial (in meaning, not size) changes to any guidelines without spending a much greater amount of time on the talk page, or at an RFC. Guidelines are not regular articles, and changes can affect discussions that you weren't even aware of. If there is even a chance that someone might get the wrong idea, then any editor should exercise the caution of instead suggesting the change on the talk page, and let people who work with the guideline regularly make the decision as to add/delete or not. When there exists a reasonable claim (true or not) that there is a conflict of interest, good judgement should dictate we avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. This is why I say it is a matter of principal, and that is what guided my actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So, reading through all of this, it looks like decent affirmative action by Dennis. Which JJB has now wikilawyered - I had a finger on the block trigger for him for disruption, but perhaps a stern not here will work: drop the stick, engage with the process, recognise Dennis' positive approach for what it was. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, Dennis, I applaud you in part for bringing this so quickly for review. But if the intent was to end the dispute affirmatively you'd be better to have just argued the case on your talk page. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

He has brought this to the attention of other admins and in other venues, and he and I have discussed this on the talk page of WP:SS as well. I do things differently I suppose, and try to use common sense as my main policy. I'm not a fan of blocking unless truly needed, for example, even if I'm "allowed to". At this point, after he has made multiple complaints, I felt it was necessary for a review and felt that this was the proper way to address them, in a fair, neutral and open venue. If the community feels that sanctions against anyone should take place, then let it be voted here. Otherwise, he and Dcmq will be free to edit WP:SS in any way they see fit. I put this in the greater community's hands, who will be responsible for the action or inaction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Starting another AN over an existing ANI with same involved parties and line of discussion doesn't seem helpful, especially when the editing issue appears to be resolved there. Agent00f (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• You need to actually read what is actually going on here Agent. JJB contested my actions and I was kind enough to bring it to the Admin Noticeboard for review, for his benefit, not mine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like an unrelated issue which can't be properly if not better addressed in that existing ANI. Agent00f (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like an inappropriate use of roll-back to me, to revert to a version from weeks past, and to disregard positive improvements. "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes. By requesting the permission, you agree to only use the tool for the accepted purpose; any misconduct with rollback will lead to its revocation." Dennis Brown, you should know that already, shouldn't you? — GabeMc (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• The page you linked states fairly clearly "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. " Nobody Ent 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but are you saying that current consensus allows admins to rollback a page to their preferred version without regard to good-faith improvements made by other editors? — GabeMc (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Saying I rolled it back to my preferred version is patently false and offensive. It was reverted to the LAST version before the two editors began tinkering, with no regard to the actual content at that time. You are claiming I did so in bad faith, and that I had a particular interest in the guidelines, one which I have never edited. You should substantiate or retract this claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Current consensus says that we don't change archive pages away from what they were when they were archived. As such, it's virtually impossible for an edit to be an improvement, except of course for edits that restore the page after someone else edits it. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Isn't the use of rollback on the wikipedia/guideline page the issue at dispute? What does editing archive pages have to do with it? In any case, it seems to me this whole discussion is irrelevent. The Rollback function wasn't used, Twinkle was [92]. The primary concern with using rollback on non vandalism is that edit summary implies you are removing vandalism and this can't be changed. The default twinkle edit summary was not use, and DB made it clear why they reverted the edits, this is acceptable provided the reverts are acceptable. I have no comment on whether it was appropriate to revert the edits, but the discussion should concentrate on that aspect not on the appropriateness of the tool used and you can't answer that by looking at a guideline for the tool used. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing. So this is what Dennis Brown has to go through as an admin for a simple decision he took. I think perhaps I should set up a little Javascript that on logon checks whether I have an RfA subpage and have contributed to it. If so it should set a random password on my username so I can never logon again as I would obviously have gone gaga. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• It appears proper for me to disengage from this part of the debate. (More than one of the above previous inputs caused parsing errors in my compiler.) If I am voluntarily not editing the page, there is no need to decide whether it's a community ban, and the question of what "MMA resolution" means is moot today and can be worked on later. So I will withdraw my request for Dennis to strike the word "ban", and respect his refactoring on a different point. My other concern (not about "rollback" of one or two edits, but of cold rollback from 27 May to 8 Apr undoing a week of consensus improvements for the sake of one unresolved insertion) has been addressed by current consensus at the protected article, so it too is moot. On the question of clarifying (not changing the meaning of) guidelines via other guidelines, I believe Dennis has neglected aspects such as my appeal to WP:SS regulars for answers (still lacking) before I made a BOLD edit and remained within BRD the whole time, but it's not necessary for me to convince him or you of these aspects. Honestly I don't know whether it's logically possible to defend against a charge of wikilawyering, and perhaps that charge should be deprecated. In closing, MMA needs not (just) conduct sanctions but meeting of the minds about overarching principles, a big picture that both camps can sign onto, and, while I accepted the risk that my exploration of that solution space might lead to being misunderstood personally, this is unimportant short-term if the VPP and other discussions begin to bear fruit. I invite Dennis and all to continue building the solution. JJB 17:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If you agree to the points, that when a policy or guideline may be central to an ongoing dispute, an editor should either avoid editing that policy page, or take extraordinary steps to insure that any edit is clearly within consensus as to demonstrate no potential conflict of interest, I would drop the consideration of any sanctions, past or present. I tried to get you to agree to this a few times before I got a bit bold myself. It was a last resort. Again, you're a smart guy and I have no ill will toward you or MMA, but I am one of those admins that considers the principal to be as important as anything. All I wanted was to protect the integrity of the system, not to take sides, which is why I stopped both of you, and reverted back to the last edit before either of you edited. You have never given me reason to doubt your character or your word, so I would accept your statement at face value. If you would just agree to stay within the spirit of what I was trying to accomplish (no specific worded agreement is required, we understand each other on these points), I would be happy to request a close of this and the other ANI as "no action", reverting my previous stand. I brought it here because you raised a valid concern, and I was willing to put my own neck on the block as well. I don't know how much more obvious I can be that my actions were in the best of faith, are still in the best of faith, and my goals are the right goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate your overture and I can generally agree. Yes, you acted in good faith; our several disagreements are not about that, and to the degree either of us made mistakes I trust we will realize it in due time. I'll agree "when a policy or guideline may be central to an ongoing dispute, an editor should either avoid editing that policy page, or take extraordinary steps to insure that any edit is clearly within consensus as to demonstrate no potential conflict of interest"; then we can disagree on whether I took those extraordinary steps or not. (I advertised the potential conflict in my first edit to the page; I asked my guideline questions generally; I obtained only one respondent, who did not want to engage the questions directly (and who may have responded in part due to interaction with me on a different policy page); and I only proceeded under BRD when it was established that there was not substantive opposition to a bold edit.) We can also disagree about whether I have a conflict about WP:SS (I think WP:COI is about three degrees removed from this event). I appreciate and return the compliments. While it is probable we can continue working out our disagreements in spurts at user talk, the overall MMA question still has not gotten over the hump, and the current drama of Portillo's actions mentioned at ANI shows this. Medcab anyone? JJB 19:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would accept this, and only note that sometimes it is better to wait, even if you feel it is too long, than be bold in these limited circumstances. This is a well educated opinion, not a condition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE based on the understanding we have worked toward, it is the opinion of myself (and presumably JJB) that this WP:AN discussion should be closed as "No Action". I would consider all previous sanctions lifted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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

A heads-up

Admins might want to keep an eye out next week, as the folks at Anonymous have declared their intent to "wreck anything...(Formula One)-related we can find on the internet" in relation to the Canadian student protests and the Canadian Grand Prix. Given that Wikipedia has quite a bit of Formula One data, it might become a target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for IP editor

IP Editor 99.140.179.74 has vandalized Mark Wegner's page three times, as can been seen here, here, and here. This rises above the level of normal vandalism, as it implies that Wegner is involved in a murder, yet it provides no evidence supporting the claim. The user has been notified of this post. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for 31 hours, the violation is clear enough, that I see no reason for further warnings. However, I don't think that banning is the correct action. Bans are not made on the basis of three edits. In addition they are applied to people, not IP addresses. We could in principle ban the person behind the IP address, but these can change, and in many cases there are many people who share an IP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure how all that worked, but accusing some of involvement in a murder or even implying it is a pretty bad thing to do. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification for speedy delete notification

Just a quick semi-technical question. If an article is submitted for speedy delete, and another editor comes and removes the 'speedy delete' notification tag, does it still remain in the admin queue to review as a delete candidate? Someone on this board a while back mentioned that such an action would remove it from the admin queue, but I wanted to double check whether this is accurate. (No, not dealing with a specific incident; I've just seen it happen enough that I wanted to know for if and when it happens again in the future.) JoelWhy? talk 20:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's accurate, as removing the speedy delete tag takes it out of C:CSD. Bencherlite^Talk 21:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

But it will not remove it from an open category listing an admin might be working on without refreshing. Agathoclea (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It is accurate in an ideal world. However category lag can sometimes affect articles even when they have been edited - I have to say this is pretty rare though. There may also be issues with caching, but I can't vouch for that. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

AIV backlog

Resolved

 – Looks clear now --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Can an administrator have a look at WP:AIV please? There seems to be quite a backlog. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

AfD backlog

Weather must be getting nice, no one is on their computers anymore. There's also a sizable AfD backlog. In about 15 minutes when the next day rolls over, there will be 60+ AfD's that are due to close. And that's after I just spent some time closing the really stale ones. Get to work! -Scottywong| verbalize _ 23:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unification Church

User:Borovv and most recently another account keep reverting a part of the article I argue is unsubstantiated (reference doesn't support it afai glanced over it) and WP:POV. Do I ask for an arbitrar, or do you think it's evident enough, will you warn them? I just think the paragraph from this diff should go away: [93] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.143.236 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• As this is a content dispute, please follow the processes in dispute resolution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Passing on a request for unblock

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

---

I happened to come across this and it made me think "maybe this is why editors are leaving WP". See User talk:Factseducado. A relatively new editor was caught up in a brouhaha where they were incorrectly named as a sockpuppet. After some back and forth they were finally cleared of that, but now there is some drama going on where the blocked user apparently received a threatening e-mail and said he/she suspected another WP editor had something to do with it. It's hard to make perfect heads or tails of this, but from what I can see, it looks like someone who is fairly new and was a constructive contributor is being bitten pretty hard. I'm not naming any other editors or admins here so I'm not going to post notifications just so the drama can continue, but there has been an unblock request on the editor's talk page for a while and nobody has responded except for admins who are apparently involved. What I'd really like is for these kinds of things to end, where people are are blocked based on incorrect information are left blocked for some other reason that is directly related to their initial incorrect block. We really need to start looking at WP:BITE and understanding it more if we're really serious about retaining editors. In any case, in lieu of folks WP:AGF, can someone neutral and with some experience dealing with newbies who are upset at being unfairly targeted please have a look at the unblock request? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Elen is dealing with this fine. Probably best to let her get on with it. Moreschi (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:186.45.53.188

explicit language on this user talk page posted by IP. is this harrassment? Jawadreventon (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't meet WP:HARASS, might meet WP:NPA, is definitely uncivil, but I've given them a 31hr rest for vandalism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Rollback Privileges

Could an Administrator please remove my Rollback rights. I do not use the tool and I am rarely online/contributing. So the permission is obsolete. Thanks Arctic ^Fox 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, per your request. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (Sanctions)

Resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban

This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.

Remedy 4.1 - Discretionary sanctions authorised

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Lost another good editor/Admin to a long-term vandal

User:Nev1 has gone, at least for a while, due to a persistent IP hopping vandal, last seen on my talk page celebrating victory. This harassment has been going on for about a year, and it appears there is nothing we can do about it. It's really pretty bad that editors can still be terrorised (really I don't think that's too strong a word) in this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

People are going to be persistent, and that's the reality and truth. I'm sorry to see him leave, but there is not much anyone can do on an open site like this. This is an environment where any certain action, edit, or comment made at the wrong time (like a block) can lead to years of frustration and harassment by others, and that is especially what all current admins – and admin hopefuls – need to understand and accept. If you cannot, then you should not be an admin, plain and simple. --MuZemike 18:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

True - and it's not just our talk and user pages that this person is vandalising, it is articles as well. And if they do it randomly.... Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's complete bollocks. Administrators at least have the privilege of not being harassed by administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There's exceptions to every rule though .. IJS Chedzilla (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, that may be true but it's also the case that it's because administrators sometimes have to do the dirty work of blocking that they in particular become targets in the way that is less likely for other editors. Though I agree that's what you sign up for as an admin and I'm not asking for anyone to shed tears for the poor corps - least of all its most trenchant critic! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What a pile of crap I am reading here, "there is nothing you can do" and "that's the reality and truth". I find not treating people like shit and treat them like people instead and it's a whole new world.

Granted it's on a planet in a galaxy far far away from wikipedia, but that counts as a new world. Penyulap ☏ 21:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell that to the long-term vandals and harassers out there. Just as there are many dedicated users who help keep the crap out of Wikipedia, there are just as many dedicated people who treat those same people like crap and make those unfortunate users that dare mess with them the prime targets of their ridicule. --MuZemike 21:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference in my approach is I accept the law of the universe called 'cause and effect'. Most other people, dare I say ever editor I have seen so far, doesn't make any connection at all. I have seen whopping great studies into vandalism which entirely miss the point by asking the wrong question. Penyulap ☏ 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Pen, the problem is that you are a reasonable person. The trolls who harass others into leaving are not. The problem is, we really can't stop them. There are too many ways to get around our blocks, and that's due to Wikipedia's (and the Internet's) open nature. We basically have to rely on them getting bored, or choosing to stop the behavior on their own. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, and it will certainly fall on deaf ears, but the solution to this is to require registration to edit. It's one thing to throw up one's hands at the drawbacks of the online world, but it's another things altogether to willfully reject the solution to the problem on ideological grounds. We're now one of the most used Internet resources around, but we still act as if we're a lowly start-up which has to allow vandalism and harrasment such as described here just to get the quantity of editors we need to move the encyclopedia forward - but we don't. In fact, since registration would almost immediately drop the volume of vandalism, all those hours spent in anti-vandal work would be able to be put towards actually improving the encycylopedia, instead of just preventing it from degenerating. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't have to mean "Anyone who wants to can screw around with us," it can simply mean "Anyone who registers".

But, as I said, tilting at windmills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering anyone can still register, your "solution" would barely slow them down. Don't get me wrong, I think mandatory registration just makes sense; however, it does not solve this problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BMK. That we continue to do this despite the pain it costs as well as the loss of good editors suggests to me at least that we have our priorities wrong. Principle over people? Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this suggestion on Nev1's talk page, wouldn't it work? " Could an edit filter be written that disallows non autoconfirmed editors from posting the text string Nev1 in the mainspace". Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Like others above, I am concerned about what looks to have been a rather nasty incident, running over a long period of time. Are there any lessons we can learn from it to protect others in the future? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how. Require logging in to edit will just result in sock-puppetry. Any bot to police the user's name is bound to have false positives or (worse) miss purposefully obfuscated comments. We could report their behavior to their ISP, but that isn't likely to have an effect. And until it gets into the realm of actual stalking, the police won't touch it. Without draconian measures to vet each person's identity when creating an account, there's no way to prevent a persistent troll from coming back. Most will get bored after a few months, but as we've seen, some will persist for years. If they never get bored of it, there's no real way to stop them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, don't piss anybody off or even go near certain users or articles, or you will get burned and badly. --MuZemike 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It might not be possible to stop harassers (though the Meta:Terms of Use allows for an uncomfortable range of legal options...) but it is possible to help the target. Wikipedia could have some sort of Harassed Users Defense League that identifies known, severe, well-defined, ongoing issues and keeps a group of people watching for specific harassers to revert them immediately. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think a support process is more likely to help, given the absence of technical solutions. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We had one a long time ago. It was called Wikipedia:Esperanza. As far as the "Terms of Use" are concerned, it's a nice official policy – on paper. However, enforcing it is completely different, and I would say that it is virtually impossible. --MuZemike 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh lovely, Malleus is not only using someone's pain here to attack administrators, he is now following me around to do this when I thanked another editor for reverting this vandal on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC) What makes you think Malleus is "following you around"? The only interaction I can see between you two anywhere is on User talk:Parrot of Doom, and Malleus, PoD and Nev1 have worked closely together for years, as the three of them effectively run (ran) WP:GM. PoD is the most frequent contributor to Malleus's talk after Malleus himself; Malleus is the most frequent contributor to PoD's talk after PoD himself, and the pair of them are the two most frequent contributors to Nev1's talk aften Nev1 himself. If this is the comment you're interpreting as some kind of attack, then that's taking paranoia to an extreme; all he's doing is pointing out that this situation is an illustration of a problem Sue Gardner has been pointing out for a few months now. – iridescent 2 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A recent software change causes untruths in old entries in editing histories.

• For example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_spectroscopy&offset=&limit=500&action=history , the oldest 3 edits are shown as "(empty)", but actually they have text content. The "(empty)" should be replaced by "(unknown)", for edits made before page length was recorded in edit histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Same problem here. Can someone who knows how bugzilla works please file a bug? Jenks24 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Despite the badly chosen name administrators are not sysops. We have zero control over the way that MediaWiki works. The correct place for this is either Project:Village Pump (technical) or (even better) the user talk page of one of the (active) MediaWiki developers, since they don't necessarily monitor even the technical discussion fora on the English Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The best place to file bugs has always been Bugzilla, not a user's talkpage. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks. I have copied this discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#A recent software change causes untruths in old entries in editing histories.. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Aschwole/User:Nuklear

This discussion came up at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuklear. In brief, Aschwole (talk · contribs) admits to being (indefinitely blocked) Nuklear (talk · contribs). Nuklear was blocked in 2009 for copyright violations. Since his reappearance, Aschwole appears to be contributing constructively. Personally, I think they should be allowed to continue to do so, as long as they are not creating copyright violations and/or using pejorative terms. However, since they are technically in violation of the rules, I thought it would be best to open a thread at AN for discussion. TNXMan 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't having a name which is a clear homophone of asshole grounds enough for a username block... We do the same thing for clever misspellings of fuck and shit... --Jayron32 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor is also a self-confessed sock of User:Yid [94], so it's instructive to read the thread on that user's talkpage in which he denied knowing that "yid" was an offensive racial slur. [95] Despite AGF, it is hard to see this stance as anything but disingenuous, and it puts the editor's choice of "Aschwole" as a new username into perspective. Further, the SPI was closed because Aschwole is editing non-disruptively, but that was the case with Yid and Nuklear as well, and the volume of warning notices about copyright problems, etc. on their talk pages argues for their really not getting what WP is about. I think an indef block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• [96] — KC9TV 07:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Raheem Kassam

This is a blog relating to the Raheem Kassam article, that may be of interest for somebody who has the time to do so, related to WP:COI - unfortunately I am preparing to go on holiday. Thanks, GiantSnowman 12:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read this one, I doubt he meets our notability guidelines, so I've nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raheem Kassam. Robofish (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban of Eric1985

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

---

We didn't really finish this discussion - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Application to End Topic Ban. To cut a long story short, Eric1985 was indefinitely topic banned from Israel/Palestine issues, primarily for running an off-wiki blog that encouraged its readers to edit Wikipedia to fight a perceived bias. The admin that originally topic banned him expressed indifference about ending the ban. Eric1985 has never been a hugely prolific editor and some were concerned that he hasn't amassed enough "good edits" since the ban was implemented. However the discussion ended with a suggestion from User:Jiujitsuguy to modify the topic ban as follows:

We can allow Eric1985 to start editing IP but only talk pages, discussion pages and collaboration pages but not actual articles. Give it two months. If we see good contributions and discussion, we can graduate him to editing articles.

Personally I think this is a great idea but as there were quite a few voices opposing a change to the ban earlier in the discussion I'd like to ensure we have some form of consensus before implementing User:Jiujitsuguy's suggestion. WaggersTALK 09:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting it a bit early aren't we? Oppose May + 6 = December 2012 Fifelfoo (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Fifelfoo, its way to early. So I oppose. Also the wikibias canvassing site is still running, (Eric started it and then he said he gave it to someone else) I think Eric1985 should tell us which Wikipedia user it is who is now running the website, before we should consider any kind of topic ban is lifted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't a revisit. There are two possible ways of interpreting the previous discussion: either it didn't reach a conclusion (in which case it's right to continue it until we do reach a consensus) or it did reach a conclusion, and that conclusion was Jiujitsuguy's suggestion. (It was the last comment left, and went unopposed). So I'm afraid oppose !votes for "revisiting" too early don't wash with me. WaggersTALK 14:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's been over 24 hours and at this rate, this thread's going to be archived without reaching a conclusion just as the previous one did. The only reason that's been given in opposition to Jiujitsuguy's suggestion is that Eric1985 has handed over his blog to someone else and hasn't told us who it is. I'm not convinced that was ever a necessary condition for lifting the ban; any other thoughts? WaggersTALK 20:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as too early. As a comment, two other editors !voted Oppose with the justification that it is too early. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb

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

---

A topic ban was enacted this month for BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. A similar issue has now come up at Conspiracy theory. Since July 2011 BruceGrubb has been using OR, poor sources, or violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to "rehabilitate" the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory" - in this case, aided and abetted by Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs). BruceGrubb's focus on the Christ myth theory and Josephus on Jesus articles explain his interest in changing the common meaning of the term "conspiracy theory", as does Mystichumwipe's focus on rehabilitating Holocaust denial-related theories (see Mystichumwipe's editing history for many examples of the latter). There has never been a consensus for promoting this view on the article, and many lengthy Talk: page discussions opposing his proposed changes; see, for example:

• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 14#Real world conspiracies
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 15 (the entire archive is devoted to this)
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16#Definitions of conspiracy theory
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16#"No consensus"
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16#The lead
• Talk:Conspiracy theory#“Conspiracy theory” versus “Theory of conspiracy” (again)
• Talk:Conspiracy theory#The broader definition of Conspiracy Theory

Their M.O. appears to be

1. Attempt to edit-war in the article changes/re-write (e.g. [97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130])
2. Be reverted in turn by a wide variety of editors (e.g. [131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151])
3. Open up lengthy talk page discussions, wait a few weeks until other editors get frustrated or lose interest, then repeat.

By my count, Bruce has now reverted this POV into the article (in various forms) at least 26 times. Mystichumwipe was quite active in reverting in the early days, but is now more cautious, simply supporting Bruce's edits on Talk: or in the article, while letting Bruce do all the actual reverts. After the usual hiatus, Bruce began this edit-warring on the article again yesterday, and eventually got blocked for violating 3RR. I'm proposing a topic ban only on BruceGrubb because a) Bruce has been far more aggressive in his editing, and b) without BruceGrubb to edit-war on his behalf, Mystichumwipe will not be likely to edit-war instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am responding because I received a message about this thread. I had not looked at the Conspiracy theory page (not my topic really) but the effort Jayjg has put into preparing the diffs is impressive. Bruce's edit pattern fits a longer term trend, as suggested above. My experience has been that I have consistently failed to follow Bruce's logic, as many other people have commented. And when he was topic banned on WP:AN, the idea of "source misrepresentation" was mentioned by multiple editors. As a whole, I think Bruce has taken up much time from many people on multiple pages, and nothing constructive has come out of it. The last time Bruce was on WP:ANI (due to complaints about his WP:RSN edit behavior) he volunteered a piece of information that made me understand a few things. My guess is that, sooner or later, Bruce is likely to be indef-blocked for one reason or another. This is just one step along that path. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said in [[152]] If you haven't looked at ANY of the material in this case why are you wasting our time getting involved? as I said then IMHO it comes off as WP:HOUNDING--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The wording "has now come up" appears to be disingenuous, as I'm aware from WT:V and WP:Inaccuracy that this is a long-running content dispute involving WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  The OP tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context.  We'll see if the administrators try to improve the encyclopedia this time, rather than allowing WP:AN to be used to win a content dispute involving a civil editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The history of authorship of the Inaccuracy essay is interesting, as is its youth, failure to be accepted in community arguments, and lack of common discussion in community arguments. There is no reason to believe that this essay is reasonable grounds for editing given these factors regarding the essay. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Is this what you meant? The page edits seem related, and the edit pattern seems to fit.... History2007 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Given the current version under Conspiracy_theory#Usage_history states "The Oxford English Dictionary records the first use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to a 1909 article in The American Historical Review.[24][25] Other sources pre-date this use by nearly four decades..." which is simply a rewording of my version, History2007 is clearly blowing smoke as they did in [[153]].
      • As for Fifelfoo smoke here the points they are contesting:

        "It should be noted just because sources are in conflict does not mean that one or more has to be inaccurate. They can be portraying the subject from different POVs and be essentially accurate within their respective points of view."

        "If the sources differ significantly in time it is advisable to do more research to determine if a change in meaning or view has occurred."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

      • As Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive718#Mystichumwipe_and_conspiracy_theories_.282.29 shows Jayjg has used this board before in an attempt to censor an editor he didn't like and I was involved here in that mess too. This IMHO is another WP:GAME effort to get their way and it is tiresome.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic banning BruceGrubb from Conspiracy theory and from articles connected with conspiracy theories, broadly construed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given Fifelfoo shutting down of a topic on the RSN board after only three hours in what IMHO was an attempt to short circuit any meaningful discussion on the topic and throwing around IMHO frivolous claims of disruption here (see [[154]] I think this is an example of possible Wikipedia:Harassment via Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME rendering their comments on this matter moot.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support a more general ban on "fringe theories" (given other cases, e.g. the revert cycle here) if suitable characterization can be found because those are where the editor's less productive actions seem to take place. History2007 (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given in [[155]] History2007 admitted "I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here" I would say that unless they have evidence in this case this topic their comments are worthless and it seems to be another possible example of Wikipedia:Harassment via Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME especially when I have the support of Mystichumwipe, Mystylplx (who stopped doing anything in April) and even Nuujinn(Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory.

    Also note the OP's (Jayjg) brow beating of other editors in Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#.22No_consensus.22 arguing for a consensus that as Mystylplx pointed out no longer existed. who later on stated "I count four in favor in the discussion. Myself, BruceGrubb, mystichumwipe and Rklawton. Wikipedia is not a democracy." (Mystylplx (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC))--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. A more general ban on fringe theories (conspiracy theories and revisionist histories) seems necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering you did only a minor edit after Mystichumwipe [[156]] you established consensus for MY version: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." (WP:CONS) your comment here makes no sense--unless you don't fully understand that part of consensus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Can we suggest other sanctions to impose other than a topic ban? Personally, I would suggest two things. A strict imposition of 1RR on BruceGrubb for all articles in main space: the edit wars are just too much. And a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL in talk pages and edit summaries. He is well known to use phrases like "DEAL WITH IT!" and "<user> went crying to the noticeboard to win a dispute". If he could express his views without so much emotion attached, I think people would be more likely to take him seriously. Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• given [[157]] I think we can take anything Fifelfoo and History2007 say with a grain of salt. Their continual involvement against me in articles they are not even involved in (such as this one) boarders on violations of Wikipedia:Harassment via Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME. I have already pointed out my federal recognized disability (Hyperkinesis aka ADHD] here on this board and my yelling in all caps is demonstrated of frustration at the community letting things get to the level of [[158]] while banning perfectly good administrators like User:Will_Beback/Barnstars for which on the surface appears by comparison to be very minor infractions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Bruce, I strongly recommend that you read WP:HA#NOT (part of the harrassment policy) and WP:Wikilawyering#Misuse of the term, because your repeated citation of these terms seems to reveal an incomplete understanding of their application. Elizium23 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • read WP:HOUND: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. [...] Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." Given in [[159]] History2007 in stated "I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here" I think per WP:DUCK I have per WP:HOUND the right to point out possible WP:GAME issues with some involved editors. --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • As I stated at the beginning, I received a message asking for me to comment here. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems to have no understanding of WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and argues interminably, tiring out other users. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This quote is straight from Oxford University Press reference I am using in my version:

    conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event. The derivative conspiracy theorist is first recorded in the 1960s — Example — 1975 New York Times: Conspiracy theorists contend that two of the men have strong resemblances to E. Howard Hunt Jr. and Frank A Sturgis, convicted in the Watergate break-in.

  • Kindly explain given the parts that I have bolded just what I don't understand about WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and while you are at it explain this edit [[160]] where I expressly state in the editor comment "often not sometimes. Let's admit that the majority of the time it is used negatively". Given some of the comments here, I have to ask how many of the editors coming here actually went to the Conspiracy theory article to see what the sam hill was going on?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Interjection: Bruce, what does "rubutle" mean? Did you mean "rebuttal"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This thread is about user edit behavior, not content. Long content based discussions are not really needed here. And of course, the issue of WP:Walls of text had been brought up in previous discussions. History2007 (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • History2007, you came here without doing any research and made comments effectively blind.Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory shows that there at least one time a more neutral definition of conspiracy theory existed and conspiracy theory in that context is being looked at again a point continually ignored by the OP in what several of the editors on the talk page have viewed as an effort to POV the article. When a lead that has Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell backing up its statements is being reverted or called WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE I have a right to call the editors making these claims out on the carpet for it.

        Also please stop using WP:WALLOFTEXT as short hand for WP:TLDR; they are not the same thing. As the second essay notes "A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity."--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

        • I am going stop now, given that I just said this thread is about "edit patterns" not "content" and received a response about content. Regarding your statement that "you have to ask what really is going on?"... who knows, may be it is a cons... Let me not even finish that. I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
          • As pointed out by Unscintillating, the OP had problems with an ipso facto case of inaccuracy. Instead of jumping in blind you should have at least done research to see if you really had an apples to apples or an apples to orange comparison. User:warshy stated "He (Ie me) has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far" a point as stated below Mystichumwipe, Mystylplx, and Rklawton also agree with. Even Nuujinn who challenged my sources on primary, secondary, tertiary grounds stated "Bratich is good, acknowledges both meanings." Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a minimum per the above examples of sustained edit warring on this issue. The extraordinary badgering of editors here (which may well be an attempt to generate a WP:CHUNK) and unjustified claims of harassment indicates that there are some more significant behavioral issues though. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just remembered that I (and several other editors) have been involved in a content dispute with Bruce in the World War II article recently. The relevant talk page thread is here, and Bruce started a discussion at WP:RSN which is archived here. His content in relation to this topic (he's arguing that a World War II-era American propaganda movie should be used to reference a view that the war started in 1931, and has kept on doing so despite a near total lack of support for this position - complete with all caps shouting initially) appears similar to that on conspiracy theories. As such, I think that we may need a bigger picture solution here. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I would like to again mention that the RSN for Is Why We Fight series reliable source for views of US 1942-1945? was archived by an involved editor against the idea after in just over three hours effectively short circuiting any meaningful discussion on the topic. As I said after I unarchived it and works by the University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press were produced supporting my contention the work was reliable "If anyone of us editors could close of a thread whenever the mood hit us then RSN would NOT have any meaning and issues of WP:GAME would pop up like ducks in a shooting gallery."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Bruce, that discussion continued for two days, then you threw up your hands with "Let the thread be archived by the bot" when you still did not get your way. No matter how many times you keep repeating it, the source is not reliable for establishing the beginning of the war. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• BruceGrubb was topic banned from Christianity topics for a long-term pattern of disrupting discussions with "Ididnthearthat"-style behaviour and pushing of fringe ideas. A few weeks later he was back here at the noticeboards, and there was a consensus that he had been disrupting a discussion about WWII with just the same kind of behaviour. Now he's showing that same behaviour on yet another, unrelated discussion. This does not seem to be topic-specific, but a more deep-seated problem with BruceGrubb's approach to disputes in general. In this sense, we might need to resort to blocks (starting medium-length and then quickly escalating) rather than topic bans. Or a general "parole" kind of personalized discretionary sanction (i.e. any admin can quickly topic-ban him from any new discussion on the first signs of disruption). At this time, I'd be prepared to make a start with a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • evidence outside of Prelude to war as well as evidence regarding reliability for the context within the limited constraints expressly stated (ie US views of 1942-1945) has been ignored. University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press all show the Prelude to War was possibly reliable for the contex I want to use it in but any meaningful discuss of those source was short circuited the continual archiving in what IMHO comes off as WP:GAME. The Sept 18, 1931 date as a possible start for WWII had been noted in other even more reliable sources and yet this NPOV fact is not in the current version.

    "While some historians argue that the war started on 18 September 1931 when Japan occupied Manchuria..." Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang who is referencing Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7. Last time, I checked Peter Lang and Transaction Publishers were not considered fringe publishers. How much we give to that position is a WP:WEIGHT issue not a WP:FRINGE one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, basically. Mathsci above says it exactly. I'm a bit sceptical about topic-banning as a universal solution to disruptive editors, and Fut.Perf.'s suggestion about a personal "parole" for disruption might be better for the project as a whole. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As mentioned below User:warshy supports my edits. His exact words on the matter are "Let me point out here that the work and research that BruceGrubb has been doing on this topic is outstanding in my view. I completely agree with all the changes he has made so far, that have considerably improved the article in terms of a neutral point of view, and of the overall quality of the article, making it much more suitable for the removal of 'American specific' tag that is the header of this section. He has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far, and that considerably improve and enhance the overall quality of information available on WP, in my view." (warshytalk 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC))--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know how I feel about the proposed topic ban. Bruce certainly can come across as if he's trying to have a reasonable debate. But, I have been the most vocal critic of his proposed changes on the conspiracy theory page, and he (with the support of Mystichumwipe, who, IMO, appears to support the changes because he is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and this revised definition makes the term appear less of a pejorative) arbitrarily made the changes under the guise of being bold. Bruce's changes on the page were not entirely unreasonable, but they fail to include some critical changes that I feel are absolutely essential, and, more importantly, he made the changes where there clearly was not a consensus to do so. Regardless of what decision is made here, I do think we need some additional voices on the Conspiracy Theory talk page, because I am making no headway with Mystichumwipe and am quickly running out of patience!JoelWhy (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have only just been alerted to this discussion, thus my delay in responding.

  Firstly, nearly all participants upon the discussion board of this article have commented upon the valuable and extremely good sourcing by BruceGrubb of material for this topic. Even those who were strongly opposed to the arguments of him, myself and others (viz. myself Mystichumwipe , Mystylplx, Rklawton and warshy) have commented upon the excellence of his research and sourcing. That includes John Shandy and JoelWhy. So I am surprised that Jayjg has accused him of "using OR, poor sources", and I think that this complaint is completely ungrounded in fact. (Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell can hardly be called "poor sources"?!!! :-o)

  As regards the accusation of "violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to 'rehabilitate' the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase"...etc, that also I regard as a false claim. One that has been repeatedly answered but sadly to no avail. I think that's a strawman argument, as I've recently explained on the discussion board. In reality the discussion has never been about "rehabilitating" the term but distinguishing between the two definitions and usages, which the article for long has failed to do.

  BruceGrubb has been civil and polite at all times, only recently showing the frustration here quoted and this came ONLY AFTER what I see as the disruptive behaviour of two editors (Tom Harrison and Calton) who without any recent involvement in the recent discussions, ignored a request to bring any issues to the talk board before reverting, and instead went ahead and reverted ALL BruceGrubb's edits which even the main antagonist in discussions has admitted he only had one "small component" of disagreement with.

  Interestingly Jayjg himeslf has shown to be in error about the definition and usage of this term on two occassions, so his personal viewpoint about all this I consider suspect and this requesting of a topic ban against BruceGrubb I feel should therefore be questioned by fair-minded editors regarding its appropriateness. It seems to me that Jayjg really has taken acception to BG's point of view of the source material, NOT his conduct in appplying that.

  Finally I take issue with the wording of Jayg's complaint: "aided and abetted" smacks of some kind of criminal activity ;-/ and seems a deliberate attempt to imply wrongdoing. As are also his groundless speculations regarding my alleged cautiousness in reverting. In actuality I am merely in agreement with BruceGrubb's understanding, as are at least two or three other editors. I would call my involvement in discussions there with him to be attempting to 'form a consensus' or 'generating agreement' NOT "aiding and abetting". This we have tried to do using reason and discussion supported by verifiable sourcing, which I would have thought should be the backbone of Wikipedia editorship. Also the accusations of myself being a conspiracy theorist or a holocaust denier are fallacious ad hominem arguments and I request that they be deleted and a warning be administered to Jayjg and JoelWhy about this.

  Summary: The use of weasel words in this request, coupled with Jayjg's own faulty understanding of the term and the debate about it make this request look to me like some form of intimidation. Researchers of BruceGrubb's calibre should be encouraged and helped if they are thought to be infringing wiki policy, not hounded and censored in this way.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • My comment was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." I was stating my perceived opinion about why you support a particular definition.JoelWhy (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually as the Ad hominem article shows it is not quite that simple as the above implies. According to the article Circumstantial, Tu quoque, and Guilt by association all fall under Ad hominem though I don't know how good the connections are. Also you clearly stated "appears to support the changes because he (ie Mystichumwipe) is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist" As I tried to show in Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_30#conspiracy_theory_definition there were a lot of "Conspiracy theories" ranging from Al-Qaeda, a group of some home grown nuts in the Timothy McVeigh mold, or the government being responsible for the 9/11 attacks. One of the theories bore fruit and got called something else but at the time it was first proposed it was a conspiracy theory ("A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven."((sic) Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2009) Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I To 9/11 Oxford University Press ASIN: B005ZO8KOY pg 3)). So even if it is later proven to be true that does not change in any way shape or form something's original status as a "conspiracy theory" and that in a nutshell is the problem with the conspiracy theory article as it currently stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • As I have pointed out over and over and over and over and over again on the conspiracy theory talk page, my problem with the changes was not that it stated there is an alternate meaning to the term, but that it implied both meanings were on equal footing. This is one of the reasons you should have waited until there was a consensus -- so we could iron out the proposed changes. It is clear you did not understand the point I was trying to make (which may have been partly my fault for not clearly articulating it, I'm not sure). The solution would have been to continue the discussion and iron out the issues rather than deciding that consensus had been reached, despite the clear protests from other editors. (I understand that unanimity is not needed, but when you have 5 editors participating in a discussion, and 2 are objecting, you continue the discussion.)

        I frankly don't think you're helping yourself here. If your intent is to insist you were right to act as you did, it is clear that you're going to be topic banned and you can then feel comfort in believing you were persecuted. However, there is still time to make an appropriate mea culpa, agree that you will not make changes without consensus, and move on. Thus far, you have been completely defensive (which is understandable under the circumstances, but still not helpful.) I have not voted in favor of the topic ban because I do not think it is constructive and I believe you were acting in good faith. However, good faith only takes you so far -- good faith doesn't resolve a misunderstanding of other users' objections. And, arguing that you were completely in the right makes other editors assume a ban is warranted as you are indicating the exact same behavior will continue. JoelWhy? talk 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. My god, what a can of worms... The professional WP editors warrying here will certainly find my "diffs." I give up. When it comes to WP and all these boards and discussions you just have to be a pro. I am just a little guy, and this technology completely overwhelms me. It is obvious that the subject of this controversy is a very critical and sensitive one for a series of cultural and epistemological "interests." So many, in fact, that I can hardly start to ennumerate them. I am just a critical, skeptical observer on the side, trying to understand how this whole "machine" of knowledge works, and from my isolated, independent point of view, BruceGrubb has done an outstanding job of researching reliable sources and bringing them to bear on the subject. The people trying to ban him here are just trying to silence his powerful argunents against the mainstream and the status quo. It is an uphill battle, and only with a horde of professional editors you can make any progress in these "knowledge" wars. I give up. Good luck to all honest, independent editors lost in this machine, as I am. warshy^talk 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I haven't even bothered looking at things properly. However, I trust Jayjg enough to assume there's sometihng there, and the behaviour of the user in this thread has been utterly ridiculous and clearly illustrates how much of a nuisance he must be. Egg Centric 16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If you "haven't even bothered looking at things properly" then why even comment? WP:CON clearly states that it is built on the quality of the arguments and not a vote. Unscintillating has clearly stated Jayjg "tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context." See for the restore by User:Bagumba ([[161]] with the comment "this is an essay about how to handle claims of inaccuracy, please describe the issue instead of just censoring it)") and then by Unscintillating [[162]] with the comment "the claim of inaccuracy exists ipso facto, please take opinions about the evidence elsewhere)" Again per Wikipedia:CON#Reaching_consensus_through_editing "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Jayjg did not have consensus regarding his edit and two other editors Bagumba and Unscintillating agreed with my edit. It is beginning to be clear a lot of the editors here are either not aware of this part of WP:CON or choose to ignore it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? Because I hope (not expect) if you read my reasoning you will understand how you are coming across... Egg Centric 16:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless you are going to provide actual arguments regarding this please don't clutter up this board with your posts. This is not a WP:Forum.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support I'm changing my ambivalent stance to a strong support based on this latest revert, in addition to this latest comment he added in the Talk section. As they say, sometimes, if you give a man enough rope, he flogs himself half to death, ties the rope around his neck, climbs onto a 3-legged chair, leaps off, and shoots himself in the head simultaneously for good measure. (I believe there's a more succinct version of this phrase, but I can't think of it at the moment...) JoelWhy? talk 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban on Fringe topics, broadly construed. Due to ongoing WP:IDHT, tendentious editing and a general inability to accept consensus not in his favor, Bruce seems unable to operate in these areas without entrenching his position. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - based on the statements of others above, and on Bruce's own comments like at User talk:BruceGrubb#Conspiracy theory. Bruce seems incapable of believing that his conduct is unacceptable, and seems at this point to almost instantly go on the counter-offensive, accusing the people who, like Tom Harrison in the section linked to, politely advise him that his conduct has violated the rules here. At this point, given the pattern of behavior in general, and his apparent inability to even acknowledge that his conduct might be problematic, I have no reason to believe Bruce is sufficinetly objective to be able to contribute to this material in accord with WP:POV, and he seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge that problem. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per this talk page edit and his bizarre misinterpretation of "consensus by editing". To me that seems to call for even stricter measures because it's not limited to a single topic but shows a general misconception of how Wikipedia operates. He is unable or unwilling to accept that his preferred version does not have consensus, to put it mildly, and he is edit-warring to still have it his way. While he may actually have a point regarding content, his behavior is simply unacceptable. Basically, what JoelWhy said about rope. Huon (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - This could go either direction and not be a bad decision, really. A topic ban was something I felt would be a bit harsh at this point on top of the last topic ban, and suggest that other possible options are there if the community wishes to take that direction, but the original diffs shown by Jayjig are strong enough to cause serious doubts to the editors ability to just drop things and move on or at least cool off. Perhaps the encourage ment they need is a ban. I support whatever admin decides.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Since BruceGrubb has continued revert-warring on conspiracy theory even while this discussion was ongoing [163], [164] – and less than a day after coming back from another block for the same issue –, and also because his behaviour in the discussion above has again crossed the line into the bizarre, displaying all the conduct problems people have noted as problematic on previous occasions, I have blocked him, for an initial period of a week. I hope this discussion can in the meantime help to clarify whether more topic bans or more blocks will be the best means of dealing with him in the longer run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef block - but not a ban - if given a topic ban, I would expect he is going to keep on with the cycle of latch on to {{insert crazy subject here}}, make david icke type edits, get a new topic ban... However I do feel he's editing in good faith. Weighing these two things together I believe he ought to be indefinitely blocked from editing, but permitted to suggest edits using his talk page and generally try to talk folk around into unblocking him. No reason to think he can't reform, seems smart enough. Egg Centric 22:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence isn't enough to be a successful Wikipedian. You must also have social competence, e.g., an ability to understand other people's state of mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I could understand a ban from editing articles, but not talk pages, noticeboards, and the like. I might even support it. But WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE might still be problems there. Limiting him to his user talk page would be in effect giving him his own soapbox, which I would find unacceptable. Discretionary sanctions might be reasonable, but that is really only in the scope of ARBCOM. I honestly don't know what would be best, other than, maybe, discretionary sanctions, including potentially being blocked from topics or articles for a set length of time. But like I said, honestly, discretionary sanctions seems to me to be the only option that I would think might really work. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The community can and does establish discretionary sanctions regarding topic areas, consider the community general discretionary sanctions regarding caste, sub-groups and politics in subcontinental articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I said that based on the response I received from ArbCom regarding such matters. More or less, they indicated that one's admin's discretion might be found indiscreet by another admin and overturned. I certainly believe that might be possible here, and I am not looking forward to seeing it. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing said it gently, and correctly in the context of WP:CIR - which is only an essay of course, but can yet be used as a shorthand in these cases. The hand writing is on the wall that this is going to lead to an indef-block sooner or later. The path to that seems non-deterministic, as recent events have shown, but it is heading in that direction. The path may not be clear, but the destination seems likely. History2007 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Bruce is on a very clear path to an indefinite duration block. I'm not sure if this is warranted yet, but it probably would be if he returns to the same conduct after the current block expires. I think that Egg Centric is probably right about what Bruce is likely to do; I just hope that he doesn't do this. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that his behavior makes me think he's quickly heading towards a full ban. He's not making the types of edits which clearly warrant such a ban, yet, but it appears he thinks he's merely a victim in all this, meaning his behavior is not likely to change. Still, I'd love to be proven wrong as he has the potential to be a valuable contributor. JoelWhy? talk 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why this negative speculation? Is that fair? Or helpful? Just leave the word 'yet' out of your sentence and what is left is the reality of the current situation. As regards the question of victimhood, I myself think he has been treated unfairly. E.g. the comment of support for the blocking by Eggcentric with an admitted complete ignorance of the case. Do you Joel, think that 'support' for blocking was fair? Do you not agree that if Tom Harrison and Calton hadn't reverted ALL his work without first discussing it as requested, this situation would not have occured. That behaviour was the catalyst, wasn't it. I find it ironic that such disruptive behaviour by those two uninvolved editors is not even being acknowledged or mentioned. Then the framing of the complaint against him by Jayjg in this block request? Do you think they were fairly framed? Do you think the language (e.g "aided and abetted by...") wasn't loaded language? That these aspects have not been acknowledged or taken into account I think is not a sign of fair treatment and I feel quite naturally lend support to a quite justified feeling of being victimised. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Was my support for blocking fair?! Of course it was! The first thing Bruce did upon returning from his block is to post on the Talk page that, because his edits had not yet been reverted, this "silence" meant there was now a consensus. It was absolutely outrageous. The gall of him to complain that others were "wikilawyering" to then point to a policy that clearly was not intended to mean you also ignore the discussion on the talk page protesting said changes. And then to engage in yet another edit war, with editors who rightfully reverted his edits where there clearly was not a consensus; he is not a victim here. He did this to himself. JoelWhy? talk 15:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it could be argued that it might be, remotely, possible for Bruce to straighten up. Someone might think that, possibly, some form of mentorship might work for him. I suppose that such might be possible, but I myself have serious doubts whether Bruce would necessary listen to a mentor. I do however suppose that the possibility is worth suggesting. I want to make it clear, however, that in no way would I even consider taking on such a role with him in any way. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When one of the major problems is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, what good is mentoring? Bruce's user talk page now has a "retired" banner on it (User talk:BruceGrubb) so this discussion may be moot; on the other hand, users unretire all the time. My read of the situation is that if he returns, Bruce will earn himself a full site ban in short order; a topic ban, mentorship, or parole might save him from this fate, but does anyone want to take on the task of policing his edits? I certainly don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the original Jayjg request is still pending, hence I will request a decision on that, so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I seriously suggest a mentor as John Carter has suggested. It may not work, or it may be the best thing for him. At least make the suggestion. Mentors do not always work out in this type of situation but it could be tried.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bruce does still have e-mail enabled, so it would be possible to contact him with the proposal. I just wonder whether we should do it now, or perhaps wait for someone to suggest themselves as a possible mentor for him. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin decision on the original Jayjg proposal

Given that threads do get archived, and that there have been no major new revelations for about a day now, I think Jayjg's original request (a conspiracy topic ban) deserves a decision. The discussion on that has produced a number of votes and views (11 to 2) and a decision may be appropriate in any case. And that may reduce further friction if Bruce unretires. Hence I would suggest a decision on that, given the number of comments, etc. so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, if Bruce is to return, it would probably be best for both him and the rest of us if this question were decided before that. It would probably be instrumental in his own decision, and I think others might be perhaps influenced by discussion about his possible continued retirement if we were to wait. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Logged ban per iar since no one else appears to be doing anything with it. Nobody Ent 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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

MediaWiki:Sitenotice:POTY2011 round 1 banner

I am a member of POTY committee. As we have some trouble to announce with meta:CentralNotice, will you advertize Round 1 banner(below) on the enwp MediaWiki:Sitenotice (for Login users only) till the centralnotice will come out (or 6 June)? Thanks in advance.--miya (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Round 1 of the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition is now open.
Click here to learn more about the contest and vote for your favorite image.

I was bold and added this to the watchlist notice rather than a sitenotice (the latter is more annoying). Killiondude (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no [dismiss] link for it? DMacks (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I came here to ask the exact same question. Please remove this notice until it can conform with the de facto standard allow us to dismiss notices once they've been read. ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the version that uses {{Display/watchlist}} as this should ensure it has a dismiss link. Dpmuk (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The dismiss button worked in the (poorly made) version I posted. Happy Melon made some changes but it appears to be some sort of failure (as far as I can tell) with switch to using fmbox. I reverted to Happy Melon's version just before the fmbox addition and the dismiss button is now available again. Cheers, Killiondude (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ontario101 uploads

Can an admin have a look at the image uploads of Ontario101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they appear to be images uploaded from the web, all without sourcing, they probably all need deleting. Mtking ^(edits) 02:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion on decision elements

To provide greater clarity regarding the purpose of each element of an arbitration decision, the following statement is adopted:

Elements of arbitration decisions

For standard hearings, decisions are posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".

Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice which are relevant to the dispute under consideration; and, where appropriate, include the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.

Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct in the dispute under consideration. Difference links may be incorporated but are purely illustrative in nature unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under considerations. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonitions), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.

Enforcement contains instructions to the administrators responsible for arbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. Enforcement provisions may be omitted in decisions that contain no independently enforceable remedies.

Additionally, the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is modified to replace the first sentence ("For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact', 'Remedies' and 'Enforcement', with a separate vote for each provision.") with the following:

Proposed decisions will be posted with a separate vote for each provision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Add Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to your watchlists

Would you agree with me that the front page of this website is rather an important place not to host mistakes and to have content that is as accurate and professional as possible? Then I ask that ever admin within eyeshot of this post add Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to his or her watchlist. I am posting this because tonight is the fifth time I've noticed a mistake or poor content on Wikipedia's homepage and posted there. All my prior requests were acted upon. Tonight no one responded at all (the featured article blurb has changed so it is no longer relevant). Each prior time it took hours for my post to be acted upon. So I think it is clear more administrators need to have this page watchlisted.—108.46.98.134 (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence requested on past episodes of outing of Wikipedians on off-wiki forums

I'm doing some research on the prevalence of outing of Wikipedians on off-wiki forums, particularly Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. I'm seeking to identify occasions when Wikipedians have been outed on such forums, specifically with regard to the posting of legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information (per WP:OUTING's definition). I don't need to know the specific details but I would like to determine how often this has happened in the past. If you have any information, please contact me (email is enabled). Prioryman (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you fulfilled the requirements at meta:Research:Subject_recruitment? Nobody Ent 13:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not research into Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors, so that's not relevant. There's no requirements to fulfil if you want to do some research into off-wiki sites. Prioryman (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are doing research which involves contacting Wikimedia project editors or users then you must first notify the Wikimedia Research Committee by describing your project. By posting here, you just contacted Wikipedia editors. Nobody Ent 14:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You may notice that the name of the page is "Subject recruitment". Taking the phrase out of context hides the fact that it's talking about contacting individual editors only. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Were you planning on simply posting the number of times only or providing information on when and where the incidents occurred (even if they are hidden)? Anything like the latter would be quite an awful thing to post anywhere, potentially making a central repository from which to seek access to the very outed personal information that should not have been revealed in the first place. No matter your intent, I can't help but see this as fraught with potential for bad juju.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply the number of times only. There have been a few incidents of which I'm personally aware of Wikipedians being outed on WR and Wikipediocracy. What I'm trying to establish is whether this is an exceptional occurrence, or something that happens on a reasonably frequent basis. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to quantify to an informative number. You'd have to look at the details of each case and what role, if any, the forum played. There's a few instances I can think of where the "outing" has been the work of one person pretty much operating on their own, but of course they've then posted the information to the site as part of their criticism of Wikipedia or the person they've outed. But that sort of situation doesn't seem to me to be something which can be avoided except by trying for a sort of code of silence. On the whole, no other sites put much stock in this particular Wikipedia norm, in the way e.g. there's a widespread practice in the mainstream news media not to politicize the children of political figures. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Following up on Fuhghettaboutit's comment, what is the purpose of finding out this "number"? More simply, what's the point?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Does e-mail to other Wikipedians count as an "off-wiki forum", e.g., "Send me an e-mail message if you want to know that editor's identity"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• It would be a reasonably straightforward exercise to count the number of instances in the various forum archives of posts of identity information about -- or allegedly about -- a Wikipedia user. That shouldn't require anybody's permission. Determining whether the posted information was accurate, and identifying instances where identity information was posted but subsequently redacted, is an entirely different matter. That gets into privacy -- and could mean, in effect, re-outing the user. --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to seek more evidence about the outings. I mean, whoever found his WP alias suddenly - for lack of better terminology - got his or her cover blown despite a wish to remain private already suffered enough with that. Especially for those editors who have butted heads with someone who is later determined to get back at him/her off-wiki. I myself have gone to great lengths to ensure my identity remains sealed, such as asking not to log in the attendance sheet at our local WikiCon two weekends ago.--Eaglestorm (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the actual intent of this project? I suggest that it is not the proper province of Wikipedia to engage in any investigations of anyone's identity, even if the goal is to assert evilness of external websites. In fact, seeking to assert that external websites are in any way violating Wikipedia policies seems a teensy bit irrelevant to the stated goals of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it certainly isn't "the proper province of Wikipedia to engage in any investigations of anyone's identity". However, as I think we all know, certain off-wiki forums have been used for this purpose. The aim of my enquiry is to try to get a handle on how frequently this has happened, not to establish "evilness" but simply to determine whether it's been a common occurrence or a rarity. And I might add that Wikipedia policy does take into account what happens off-wiki (cf. WP:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment), so it's certainly a relevant issue. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In my view, you still haven't answered the question. Let's assume your research comes up with accurate numbers. What use will those numbers be to anyone? The section you cite says what can be done in individual cases. I don't see how knowing the extent that this happens will help other than to satisfy your curiosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My curiosity too, I'm afraid. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And no doubt others' curiosity as well, which is fine, just as long as Prioryman realizes that it won't serve any greater purpose. I don't see anything wrong with Prioryman doing this other than all the warnings that he shouldn't go any deeper than just collecting numbers and perhaps the fear that he might. The old Pandora's box.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb23 here. I do not see any real indication regarding how the information gathered would ever be of any real use to anyone. Granted, many people have said the same thing about wikipedia itself, but generally sarcastically. If there were any way to make it useful, either by changing policy or guidelines or whatever, I would probably be more supportive, but, at pesent, I can't see any way to use the information. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What it would likely be used for is an attempted revival of WP:BADSITES. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. That's dead, at least for the moment, but it's not my concern. Prioryman (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have a partial list at User:Silver seren/WR Outing. Silverseren^C 03:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So if one wanted to find the identities of the editors you have listed, they could search Wikipedia Review? This seems like exactly the kind of thing that people were expressing concerns about earlier in this thread. Perhaps this page belongs elsewhere. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hm, and how is Seren's WR tally sheet any different from whatshisname that got his "list of WR users" MFD'ed a few months back? Tarc (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Because i'm not listing WR users? I'm listing events and i'm not even giving much info on them. The info is all kept on my computer. Silverseren^C 02:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Does anyone know how many people have been outed on Wikipedia? More generally, should we count COI cases, like Bell Pottinger employees? Sockpuppets of banned users? How about editors with a pedophilia conviction that attracted media coverage participating in Wikimedia projects, and found to be soliciting nude images from other Wikimedia users (User:B*** M)? How about fugitive murder suspects who have contributed to Wikipedia (User:Imastarok)? In how many cases was the outing information repeated and left to stand in Wikimedia projects? How about cases where the offsite information was redacted? Without an actual investigation of each case in question, counting white marks on a blackboard won't tell us very much. --JN466 13:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: Brews ohare topic-ban (Speed of light)

The following was resolved by motion:

1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.

2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.

3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Name Change

Not a big thing. I am simply retiring my current account and starting a new one, simply because I hate my current username. Just didn't want any administrators thinking I was socking, so i'm announcing it here. My new name will be User: Ice Penguin. One pier (Logbook) 18:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ice Penguin was taken, so my name is User: Penguin 236. Sounds a lot friendlier than my last name. Penguin 236 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, you may want to link your accounts on your new userpage; if it concerns you. Just make a note that says you used to have a different account. Many users do this, and it isn't a big deal to change usernames. You can also keep all of your old contributions if you rename the account. That can be done by filing a request at WP:CHU; which may be preferable to abandoning an old account as all of your contributions remain with you in your history. --Jayron32 18:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. i'll see what I can do to link the accounts. Penguin 236 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible mentorship of User:BruceGrubb

As per the section still currently included on this board WP:AN#Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb, he has now been banned both from the broad subject of Christianity and from the Conspiracy theory article. As per that section, serious concerns about his future conduct caused the question of possible mentorship to be raised. The editor in question has, apparently, retired from wikipedia, presumably based at least in part on the comments made here by others, including myself. It may be irrelevant at this point to raise the question of mentorship, given Bruce's apparent retirement from wikipedia, as per User talk:BruceGrubb, but I am not sure myself of the protocals to be followed in such matters, or if there is, at this point, any real purpose to be served about the possible mentorship of someone who has apparently retired from editing. It may be possible, however, that if Bruce were mentored, the problematic behavior which led to the two bans might be eliminated. Any input would be welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bruce appears to be blocked for edit warring this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Close merge discussion

Resolved

Could you please close Talk:Ashton_Kutcher#Merge_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure would do rather than here. --George Ho (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K. I opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Merger_discussion_closure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia biography - Adele Astaire

I am quite sure I have not found the correct place to inform your editors of an error in this lady's biography, but perhaps you might forward this information to the right spot: My comment simply is this - your article states that Adele Astaire died in Tucson, Arizona - actually she died in January of 1981 in what was then called Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, Scottsdale, Arizona (since name changed to Scottsdale Healthcare). I am an R.N. who was assigned to take care of this lady on the night that she died - this was over 30 years ago. I wondered why her brother was not with her as she lay on her death bed - in fact not a soul was in her room except for me - she was in no way suffering but lay quietly sleeping in her hospital bed. She did have an I.V. I was working the evening shift - 3:00 to 11:30 p.m. - and I realized it was a shame for her to breathe her last while all alone, so I stayed in her room after my shift ended for several hours until she died and a doctor in the building came up to her room and actually pronounced her dead. The only other thing I remember is that she looked so well cared for and did not look her age - her hair was curled and her face was very smooth and unlined - another nurse said she must have had frequent facials to have such beautiful skin. What I am saying could be verified at the hospital by asking someone in the record room to look through their microfiche back to the day she died - towards the end of January in 1981.

Diane Mehok Scottsdale, Az. 85251 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.45.158 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, indeed this information can be verified. I've posted 2 references on Talk:Adele Astaire#Scottsdale that directly mention Scottsdale and Scottsdale Hospital. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 08:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sleepy thread needs to be put to bed

Will some helpful fellow please archive-top (rather than collapse) the thread entitled "Oversight needed, erase personal information" at ANI? (link/snapshot) Pretty please, with a newcomer on top? I've suggested some language with which to do so, at the end-of-thread. No newcomers will be injured by an archive-top close, btw; that was just a joke. It should be uncontroversial. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Taken care of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:AWB Backlog

Hey Guys, if any of you wouldn't mind taking a breath from editing and pop on over to the AutoWiki Browser Checkpage Requests, I would be really grateful. Thanks, and Cheers! The Illusive Man^(Contact) 15:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I occasionally wonder if I'm the only one who goes there... I'm on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion on standardized enforcement

To provide for standardized enforcement of editing restrictions imposed by the Committee, and to reduce the amount of boilerplate text in decisions, the following procedure is adopted, and shall apply to all cases closed after its adoption:

Standard enforcement provision

The following standard enforcement provision shall be incorporated into all cases which include an enforceable remedy but which do not include case-specific enforcement provisions passed by the Committee:

"Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page."

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

wikilink

May as well mention this here since it was prompted by a discussion over on the Incidents board not long ago. The bot policy page has a suggestion that a wikilink or similar be added from one part of the page to a bit further down. Cheers, --92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong tensions and dispute at Nazism article talk page, need advice on how to proceed

Discussions at this section [165] on the talk page of the Nazism article have been very tense and very strong and potentially POV claims are being made. There are claims there that is associating Christians and Lutherans in particular, almost as a whole of supporting Nazism. I believe that this is stereotyping all Christians in Germany as Nazis. I have asked for a compromise that would recognize both that there were Christians who were Nazis and that there were Christians who were not Nazis. This has been rejected.

Advice is needed on how to proceed. The dispute was highly tense and aggravated from the start and I think that administrative intervention may be necessary. I am concerned that this article is going to display an anti-Christian POV with some of the things that have been said in the discussion. I am not a Christian, but an atheist, but I think that this article's material on religious support for the Nazis requires serious and careful review by multiple users, perhaps through a Request for Comment (RfC). I am confused on how to set up an RfC, I would appreciate it if someone here could assist in setting up an RfC for that discussion.--R-41 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I must correct the above misrepresentation by R-41. The Church and State section did in fact contain the balance which he maintains it lacked. I suggest that whoever investigates this should first - (a) check the Church and State section as it existed on 17 April 2012; (b) read the archived talkpage which led to (c) a set of changes made by 28 April 2012. Then (d) check the page as it now exists following R-41's edits made on 30 May. Then (e) follow the current dispute on the talkpage. Also, nothing has been rejected because R-41 has not made any positive contribution to replace the material he has removed. I do not envy anyone taking this on. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

My concern about POV by Kim Traynor is that he/she has claimed that there was a "Christian propensity to accept Hitler's regime" and this "I have said that Christianity may have been predisposed to accepting Hitler's regime".--R-41 (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now restored all the material that you opposed me for removing. We still need discussion on the content, and I believe administrative intervention is needed to assist in resolving the issue.--R-41 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute with no apparent need for administrator intervention. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And I have made it clear in the discussion that the above phrase being quoted was a sloppy version of the original contention that the mainstream Christian churches may have been predisposed to accepting Hitler's regime. I have given reasons for that which are quite well known in the literature on the subject. This is not an attempt to slander Christians. It addresses an issue which has caused Christians much soul-searching since the war. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I gotta back Saddhiyama here, this is not something that requires an Admin bit to fix. Try an WP:RFC and, if that fails to settle matters, follow WP:DRV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41 asks here for advice on "how to proceed". As Saddhiyama says, this is a content dispute. And discussion is still proceeding on the article talk page, as is appropriate, where it would be helpful if the OP desisted from (1) misrepresenting the posts of contributors with whom he disagrees (e.g., but not limited to, "Kim Traynor, I think that you have a strong POV here that is aimed at presenting Christians in Germany as causing Nazism", a misrepresentation so blatant as to be laughable) and (2) tossing accusations around (e.g. "insulting", "condescending", "hostile", "combative") when his own contributions trigger understandable yet surprisingly mild expressions of frustration in his colleagues' responses. No need for further discussion or action here.Writegeist (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Review block of SunLover77

Sorry to bring up a stale issue, but I've spent some time trying to work with the blocking admin(s). Unfortunately we have not been able to reach a satisfactory result, so I am bringing it here for wider review.

Here is a summary of events:

• 2006-12-29/2011-07-18: Bamanh27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits various articles, and creates articles on Pride of Dixie Marching Band, Sahpreem A. King, Dianna Booher, Laura Stack (AFD), and National Speakers Association.
• 2011-07-16/19: DME2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cottreda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Pcola30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit Laura Stack and National Speakers Association to variously remove COI tags, add references, and discuss notability on talk pages.
• 2011-07-19/20: An SPI is opened about the four users above. The report cites an Elance page to support the claim that Laura Stack is a "paid for article". Checkuser concludes that all four are unrelated. The last three accounts are indef blocked "Per behavioral evidence". Bamanh27 is not blocked, warned, or contacted in any way (about blocks or socks).
• 2012-05-27: SunLover77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits various articles and creates Jon Gordon.
• 2012-05-29: Another SPI reports SunLover77, linking it to Bamanh27 on the basis of the same Elance page. See also a related ANI thread. Checkuser has "Nothing else to report". SunLover77 is indef blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts".
• 2012-05-30: WestCoast91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits various articles, including Jon Gordon.
• 2012-05-31: WestCoast91 is added to the SPI and indef blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts: CheckUser confirmed sock".

Looking specifically at the block of SunLover77: Evidence on the third-party website suggests that Bamanh27 and SunLover77 may have been operated by the same user, but they were not operated at the same time (ten month gap) and Bamanh27 was not blocked (at the time of the SunLover77 block), and had not been given any single-account restriction. It has been suggested that all of these accounts are socks of some unknown main account, created in order to avoid scrutiny. That might be true, but I am still concerned that as soon as paid editing is involved, we lower the threshold for evidence, stop assuming good faith, don't discuss issues with the editor, and issue indefinite blocks for content/behavioural issues that other editors get away with daily. Paid editing of Wikipedia is not (currently) forbidden, but this sort of thing gives the impression that we're blocking editors merely for being paid editors.

I don't mean to excuse any sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, block-evasion, COI-editing, or creation-of-articles-on-subjects-of-marginal-notability that has actually taken place, but without the context of paid editing this would be considered a pretty BITEy response. Would we be better off if paid editors were encouraged to operate openly, and in full compliance with our policies, rather than driven away or driven underground? I'd like to hear some outside perspectives. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the involved admins of this discussion. I have not notified the indef blocked accounts. Bovlb (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There exists a still open but quiescent Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI on the issue. Nobody Ent 23:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that RFC. Somehow I hadn't seen that before. I guess Wikipedia is a big place. It is very relevant to these issues. I'll read it over when I get a chance. Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not aiming to be disrespectful Bovlb, but as indicated by your comment here, the only person involved in this situation and complaining - including the blocked individual - that the result is unsatisfactory is you. It's not a bad principle to encourage paid editors to operate openly, but since their first and inherent interest is their wallet, and not Wikipedia, they realise that there is only so open they can be. WilliamH (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that not only is there at least one case of pure sockism, but that paid editing might have led to some fantastic meatism as well ... both of which have been met by the expected and anticipated end. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on my previous comment. This is the third time I find myself saying this, but there is evidence that Bamanh27 was created using an IP from a rented server/proxy, a perspective with which another CheckUser agrees. The account almost certainly belonged someone experienced, in all probability a member of the community wishing to evade scrutiny while willing to abuse Wikipedia to further their own finances. The very creation of this account in this way completely vindicates my previous comment that however much we want them to be open and however willing they are to respond, the reality is that there's only so open they can afford to be. WilliamH (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, going by that third party website, it seems likely that the person behind the Sunlover77 acount also created the articles Perfect Combination (book) and Platanos Y Collard Greens. However, in this case the account (User:GoJazz2012) has edited both prior to the creation of Sunlover77 and after Sunlover77 was blocked. If that's the case, the Sunlover77 account was being used at the same time as the GoJazz2012 one. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I did considerable editing of the overly promotional article on the book. I suggest careful checking of earlier articles for similar problems. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Good find. That suggests that the user has (even) less clean hands than I had supposed. Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I will note that another new editor has removed the COI tag from the Jon Gordon article that SunLover77 created in this edit. I think it's likely that this user is a sock of SunLover77. User names and contribution histories are similar. Even though the article was created and improved by socks of a blocked user, it looks fairly solid. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've added a Connected Contributor template on the talk pages of Dianna Booher and Jon Gordon and subsequently removed the COI tags on the front of the articles. COI tags should only be added if there is POV material in the article in relation to a COI editor. Neither of these articles have POV material, so the proper action is to document the COI editor's involvement via the talk page and a Connected Contributor tag, not to slather an inappropriate COI tag all over the place that our readers have to look at. Silverseren^C 09:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Charlesdrakew & User:CourtneyBonnick

There's been an "edit war" between me & User:Charlesdrakew in regards to the routes he keeps removing (which has been there for 4 years) which I'm attempting to sort out on another board,

Anyway this user has decided to copy the exact reasons/rv's as Charlesdrakew (and the rv's seem to be around the same time) to why parts of this page: Arriva Southern Counties should be removed,
And now I've pointed out to Courtney no one had removed the routes to : Arriva Southend and Arriva Guildford & West Surrey - She's now removed them .... I think she's decided to join in with her little friend, ...
Alot of good editors have edited the page and I don't one person to remove it because "it's uncyclopedic" ... Waffle over Thanks Davey2010 Talk 01:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Мэн-1

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Please delete copyvio picture

Resolved

 – The local version here was deleted; the version on the commons is tagged for deletion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture File:Guayaquil Montage by Ultraman X77.png are picture collection without originals picture loaded and there are bigger version here of one of those picture.--Musamies (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for DRV closure.

Hi folks, It's a really (really) hard DRV, but it is _way_ past needing to be closed. It will be fun, I promise! It's got copyright issues, an admin who !voted to overturn his own close and cake¹!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_Advanced_Dungeons_.26_Dragons_1st_edition_monsters

¹: yes, the cake is a lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored ... trying to close the DRV ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done And since cake was promised - even if withdrawn as a joke - I think I deserve some anyway. Reading that took a lot of energy, and I need to improve my current icing quota (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of cake :-). Thanks for closing it though. I can generally tell you how an AfD or DRV will close with pretty high certainty. That one I had no clue on. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Sardinia

Someone who has a clue should do something about the long-term edit war over Kingdom of Sardinia [166] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I make no warranties as to my level of clue, but as a start I've protected the page for several weeks and opened discussion about dispute resolution on the talk page. This war has been going on for years. That history is horrible. :/ Shorter protection doesn't seem likely to accomplish much. It seems to me that the disputants have hardened in their positions. The first step would seem to be to try to change that through encouraging good faith outreach to neutral parties. If the edit warring persists after the protection expires, it may be necessary to semi-protect the page long-term (IP activity has long been problematic) and to either block or topic-ban autoconfirmed editors who persist in revert-warring after. Any other thoughts? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. There is a particular need for Oversight candidates in this round of appointments.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 15 June 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Redirects for creation

 Done Would an admin please create the following 4 redirects if possible:

Husareyn as #REDIRECT [[Húsareyn]] {{R from title without diacritics}}

Igor Kojic as #REDIRECT [[Igor Kojić]] {{R from title without diacritics}}

Raul Gonzalez (Mexican boxer) as #REDIRECT [[Raúl González (Mexican boxer)]] {{R from title without diacritics}}

Sefika Pekin as #REDIRECT [[Şefika Pekin]] {{R from title without diacritics}}

This is for my missing redirect bot creation task. The first is on a blacklist, not clear why, or if this should prevent creation of the redirect. The last three are currently salted pages, I assume it would be fine to create the redirects now there are existing pages. Thanks Rjwilmsi 18:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Created all of them, attributing you in my edit summaries. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement

The following was resolved by motion:

It is not in dispute that, despite being indefinitely prohibited from doing so, Rich Farmbrough made automated edits in breach of the sanction on 31 May 2012.

1. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is blocked for thirty days from the date of enactment of this motion.
2. To avoid future breaches of whatever nature, Rich Farmbrough is directed:
   1. to blank userspace js pages associated with his account/s;
   2. to avoid making automated edits to pages offline for the purpose of pasting them into a normal browser for posting;
   3. to make only completely manual edits (ie by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);
   4. to refrain from edits adjusting capitalisation of templates (where the current capitalisation is functional) or whitespace and similar as these can create the appearance of automation.
3. Further, Rich Farmbrough is advised that:
   1. The prohibition on using automation will remain in place and in full force until modified or removed by the Committee;
   2. The earliest date on which Rich Farmbrough may request that the Committee reconsider the automation prohibition is 15 January 2013;
   3. The Checkuser tool will be used to verify Rich Farmbrough's future compliance with the prohibition;
   4. If Rich Farmbrough breaches the automation prohibition again, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions, he will likely be site-banned indefinitely with at least twelve months elapsing from the date of the site-ban before he may request the Committee reconsider.

By adopting this motion, the Committee is extending considerable good faith to Rich Farmbrough, despite the aggravating factors, and notes he has unconditionally accepted provisions to this effect.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Lord Roem (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

IPv6 surprise!

Further information: World IPv6 Launch, m:IPv6 initiative, and User:Jasper Deng/IPv6

Get ready for this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's funny; this fix hasn't been implemented over there. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That's because *.wmflabs.org sites don't run on the cluster, where Tim's hook function was added. I doubt it's really a big deal. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, definitely not big, but I'm now tempted to place the "this user deleted the Main Page" userbox on my userpage :-) I thought it meant that any WMF-related wikis would have this function. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Folks, we've been eyeing and anticipating this for a couple of years, now. This is not something isolated like Pending Changes; IPv6 is global (i.e. throughout all of teh Internets) and was imminently going to be deployed here. We can't hide ourselves from its deployment in the eyes of many onlookers. Whatever bugs that come up in the MediaWiki software as a result should be dealt with quickly and accordingly, as they normally are.

  With IPv6 eventually becoming a reality, we have to again see what works for us and what doesn't. IPv6 addresses are allocated differently from IPv4, and IPv6 ranges will be harder to see (without the appropriate software tools, many of which are out there and easy to access) than IPv4 ranges, but that is something that we have to get accustomed to. We cannot afford to continue living in the past, especially with something as critical as this. --MuZemike 07:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It appears you are making counter points to an argument no one has made (at least here). I don't believe anyone has an issue with IPv6 being used in and of itself (though this is the internet and someone probably will) but rather the "oh hey guys we're turning this on in a few days" thing. It would be nice if someone familiar with the technical side (Jasper?) could make some help pages about how to deal with IPv6 addresses (blocking, rangeblocking, etc.) for admins. Killiondude (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Some SWMT members have complained on IRC that it's gonna break the bots, the toolserver scripts they use, and confuse admins. User:Jasper Deng/IPv6 has become the main page for IPv6 information for Wikimedia. My main concern is the breakage of our mechanisms like Twinkle and pop-ups.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the vitriol regarding all of the recent software changes as of late, I am anticipating negative responses from them. --MuZemike 07:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to make a satirical post on the Village pump demanding the reversion of IPv6 until an RFC is held to demonstrate community consensus... But I probably won't. Anomie⚔ 11:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I liked the old way better. IPv6 is too confusing. The internet should be reverted until an RfC on Wikipedia determines its future. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:22, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC) 12:03, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least have a gadget to restore the old functionality?? :P Happy‑melon 12:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Anomie: You should write a piece for the Llama. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• You guys can't say you weren't informed, b/c WikiProject IPv6 Readiness was canvassed multiple times.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Jasper Deng's page might be a little inaccessible for the administrator who just wants to know "How do I block these new-fangled long IP address things?". I've therefore started an alternative — designed as a user guide rather than project notes — page at m:User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard/Guide to blocking IP version 6 addresses. It's on Meta because, of course, it's not only you administrators here on this particular project that are going to be affected by this. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

His page contains some things that are not 100% correct, though it's slightly less technical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Did this fizzle out? I have not been able to resolve an IPv6 address for Wikipedia today. If there is no AAAA record for wikipedia-lb.wikimedia.org we are not going to know where to connect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be working now. Witness [167] and [168]. the wub "?!" 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Working for me too 2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to wikihounding

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

---

On this page, in a recent arbcom review, in multiple SPI reports and more recently on WP:ANI, there have been discussions of the editing of Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is a serial sockpuppeteer who has been wikihounding me through a long series of sockpuppets and ipsocks since 2009. He appears to have created large reserves of sleeping sockpuppets. Apart from stalking me on specialist subjects where I have some expertise, he has made trolling comments in numerous arbcom pages, project pages and on administrators' or arbitartors' talk pages. Reccently in the last two days he has used four sockpuppets, all of which have been identified by checkuser and blocked indefinitely. Nyttend seems to have been persuaded by some of the trolling edits of Echigo mole, enabling him to some extent. Currently he is objecting to me removing trolling edits of this banned user from his talk page. Why would he object to that and why is that not covered by WP:DENY? That doesn't seem quite right to me. Nyttend seems, undoubtedly through no fault of his own, to have got things mixed up and the wrong way round. He does't seem to be able to tell the difference between a banned troll and an established editor in good standing. I have tried to discuss things with him, but, as it seems to me, he has consistently taken the side of Echigo mole. He does not seem to have taken into account my long term content contributions, which have been unproblematic and occasionally praised. There is something not quite right going on here, so I would rather nip it in the bud. Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm constantly taking his side? I came in as an uninvolved administrator, found a decent-quality article (about a street in an old part of a French city) that the sock had written and Mathsci had redirected, and unredirected it because it demonstrated notability through a range of sources. Mathsci objected to my action, protesting that the historical sources on the article were unreliable because of their age (even after I pointed out the fact that 19th-century sources are not made unreliable by time and that they're used on multiple featured articles), and became obstreperous to the point that I simply dropped the issue, hoping that the matter would be dropped. Logging on after church, I found that another sock had posted to my userpage and Mathsci had reverted it — because I'd rather not have others chop text from my talk page, I restored it, and my refusal to permit modification or removal of the text has landed me here and resulted in a threat of arbitration and checkuser. No complaints about Mathsci trying to fight illegitimate sockpuppets (see here and the bottom here to see how I respond to illegitimate sockpuppets), especially when they're trying to out you. However, when they're contributing good content and you remove said content because you live on said French street, you've got a COI — the article said nothing about Mathsci, so WP:OUTING was no justification for removal — and there were repeated erroneous claims that old sources aren't valid. All this was a content dispute, so I wasn't going to go anywhere, but the repeated unwillingness to heed the WP:RS standards led me to believe that this was not a good-faith situation of getting rid of a nonnotable article. Now today I'm informed that failure to heed WP:DENY is grounds for being brought here — funny, since that's only an essay. Damnatio memoriae in real life just doesn't work (let alone online), and I'm not inclined to obey an essay with which I disagree — especially in my own userspace, and especially after I've told the informer to leave my talk page alone and nevertheless find myself repeatedly harassed at said page. Find me a policy absolutely requiring the removal of good content or talk page messages produced by banned users, and I'll obey it, but until then I will strongly disagree with redirecting it away and will not permit its removal from my userspace. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Here: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

Nobody Ent 01:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert != deletion of articles which are properly sourced and have been substantially edited by others. What is clear, moreover, is that Mathsci by saying "He does't seem to be able to tell the difference between a banned troll and an established editor in good standing" is evincing battleground mentality, about which, I understand, Mathsci has been chastised previously. Drop the idea that Wikipedia is a battleground, that everyone who does not agree with you is somehow against yu, and Wikipedia will run far more smoothly. And have a cup of tea - attacking Nyttend does not help anyone at all AFAICT. IMO. Collect (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The same comment was made by MastCell concerning an arbitrator and another blocked sockpuppet of Echigo mole, so I do not quite understand Collect's point. I have rarely been wrong about sockpuppets and should any of the accounts that created the hoax articles connected with rue Cardinale edit again, there will be a CU request. What seals it for me is that the probability of an accidental coincidence between a hoax article on Gustave de Zarbouble and a previous sock Zarboublian is zero. Echigo mole knows my real life name which he's written on wikipedia; he has said as much when trolling on arbcom pages and has undoubtedly worked out my address. I am not aware of any conflict of interest when writing articles on Aix-en-Provence or Marseille and I am surprised that Nyttend makes such a claim. My editing of articles on France has never been criticized. A long time back (2007) Elonka indicated that using web pages provided by tourist offices in Aix or Marseille for adding content on historical matters was not a good idea and I tend to agree. It can give a useful hint as to what information to search for in WP:RS. As far as the issue that living in a place creates a COI when writing about that place, the same criticism, in the unlikely event that it were valid, would apply to Roger Davies. Anyway later today I will supplement my collection of books on the history of Aix in preparation for expanding quartier Mazarin with reliable secondary sources, very few of which are available on the web. Mathsci (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Long response: You used intemperate language about Nyttend which was unneeded. The comments about the sock do not mean you should ascribe any wrong-doing to Nyttend here at all. Have a large cup of tea. Collect (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not use intemperate language. Even here Nyttend made a suggestion about COI, which is completely untenable and, if true, would apply even more so to Roger Davies. The phrase that you objected to was used in very similar circumstances by MastCell of an arbitrator:[169] "an inability to distinguish serious, good-faith concerns from obvious disruption and trolling". MastCell's comments might also apply to your edits here: it's a bit borderline. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Note:

Nyttend seems to have been persuaded by some of the trolling edits of Echigo mole, enabling him to some extent. Currently he is objecting to me removing trolling edits of this banned user from his talk page. Why would he object to that and why is that not covered by WP:DENY? That doesn't seem quite right to me. Nyttend seems, undoubtedly through no fault of his own, to have got things mixed up and the wrong way round. He does't seem to be able to tell the difference between a banned troll and an established editor in good standing. I have tried to discuss things with him, but, as it seems to me, he has consistently taken the side of Echigo mole. He does not seem to have taken into account my long term content contributions, which have been unproblematic and occasionally praised. There is something not quite right going on here, so I would rather nip it in the bud.

Including the last part There is something not quite right here after the earlier comments appears, to this casual observer, to be less than fully temperate, and to imply a deliberate malfeasance on Nyttend's part. If you have evidence that Nyttend is deliberately violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I commend you to file an RFC/U on him (or her). Clearly you have learnt from your previous problems for attacks on others and battleground behaviour, but I regard the statement to be clearly an "attack" on Nyttend. And drama/battleground inducing rhetoric. Collect (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You just restored a trolling edit by the ipsock 94.197.236.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) even after they had been blocked by an administrator as an Echigo mole sock following an SPI report.[170] Wow, what a great wikipedian you are! On the other hand, since 2009, Echigo mole has not only been a stalker but has consistently lied on wikipedia and made promises off-wiki to arbitrators that he has broken. Now you are apparently not only sending out encouraging signs to him on your talk page, but also continuing to make trolling edits here. Wyy reproduce an edit that can be read further up in this page? Today, by way of contrast, I purchased two definitive works on the quartier Mazarin and will obtain a complimentary copy of the history of the Church of Saint-Jean-de-Malte, Aix-en-Provence by Jean-Marie Roux the day after tomorrow. None of these are viewable on the web and I would imagine they are hard to purchase outside France. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow! You insert an irrelevant aside and attack on me here for no reason at all? In case you forget, each editor may delete or restore material on their own user talk page. Which I did. I regarded Hipocrite's "policing" of everyone's talk page to be quite unsettling, and I was not the only person who so noted this. [171], So your gratuitous aside makes me more sue than ever that your battleground mentality on Wikipedia continues unabated. Cheers - but your post was about the least useful thing you could possibly have done here. Collect (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC) FWIW, my :encouraging sign" which Mathsci asserts I gave was I note that you may be acting for a banned user, and assign your position the weight it merits only. Does that sound like I am encouraging that person? Cheers - but I suggest that such is the path of "finding enemies behind every log" - what happens is the random guy you point at may see your accusations for what they are. Collect (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that "battleground conduct" referred to my perseverance ("grim determination" in the words of Roger Davies) in pursuing those operating proxy-editors. In the end it worked and arbcom bit the bullet. Collect on the other hand is just making assinine trolling edits here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that accusing a good faith editor of "asinine trolling" is precisely what indicates battleground behaviour. Cheers - each of your posts appears to have a cumulative ffect. Collect (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that about your "edits". I do not believe that you were editing in good faith when you made this comment at WP:AE a week ago.[172] There was a further request today (see below). I wonder now whether you could please change your tone and drop your continual attempts to misinterpret and distort the arbcom findings. They are clear enough about the accuracy of detecting sockpuppets of Echigo mole/Mikemikev/Tholzel, so please just drop it and move on. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Amazing! An edit that sought to defuse dramah is not in good faith? Pray tell -- since it did not assign blame to anyone, what the hell do you think I was trying to do? Attack you by not attacking you? And you think that I was trying to "misinterpret" arbcom findings? In what way? I think it is well past time for you to get a 2 litre super big cup of tea <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I just want tom make a general comment about the reverting banned users' edits thing. Yes, policy says things should be reverted in a general sense (something I don't really like, but whatever), but it has also commonly been upheld that any editor in good standing can restore said edits and articles, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for the content. So, if it turns out to be a copyvio or a hoax or something, then it is that editor's fault in terms of their judgement. That's usually how we deal with it at least. So Nyttend is completely allowed to restore a redirected article made by a banned user so long as he is willing to take responsibility for it and the article should not be redirected again by anyone else without consensus or it is the person redirecting it that is edit warring. Silverseren^C 06:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Good stuff in general, but we need to look at the unusual situation in the case reported (I don't mean the particular incident, I am mean the long term harassment). The community should support good editors, and it is not acceptable that a long term disruptive sock can track down an editor's identity, then create a permanent irritation with an article on the street where the editor lives (a long street in France, with various hotels and a couple of places where several people-without-articles were born). I do not know if the sock is harassing Mathsci because it is fun, or because of the race and intelligence arbitration case (where several very persistent civil POV pushers were banned). Either way, it is not helpful for the encyclopedia or the community to take this opportunity to debate the merits of whether a banned user's edits should stay reverted. Here is yet another sock who has just arrived to harass Mathsci with ever-so-helpful links to complex pages in the hope that some mud may stick. Applying WP:DENY is the best procedure: just revert and block the sock. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • So you're saying that we can never have an article on this street because at one point in time it was connected to one of our editors? Silverseren^C 07:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • No, of course I don't believe that. There are a lot of streets in France, let alone the world, and there is no urgent reason to have an article on that particular street now. For one thing, its content really is of zero encylopedic significance (my summary above gave the essence: the street goes from here to there; it contains a few hotels and some other not-very important buildings; some non-notable people were born there—a lot of streets fit that description). When an editor in good standing believes that it would benefit the encyclopedia, they may care to see if some decent material of encyclopedic significance is available and try again. However, given that there are lots of other worthwhile things we could all do, working on a dubious article created for the purpose of harassing a good editor just does not seem helpful to me. If anyone wants a challenge, I suggest they put it near the bottom of their list of things to do, and resurrect the issue in a couple of months when the current fuss will have died down, and when such an article would not be merely a monument to encourage further novel harassment techniques by the banned user. Johnuniq (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The article on quartier Mazarin is the article to write given the recent scholarly and detailed 2011 text of some 300 pages, amongst other sources, and a detailed street by street account from 1964 which has become a classic. The start of the original English stub was just a word-for-word translation of the improperly sourced and inaccurate two sentence lede (all the content) in the French stub. (There is one fountain in the quartier Mazarin.) The history takes several chapters in the book of Castaldo and, written as it is in academic French using documents only recently analysed from Aix archives, will not be particularly easy to write. On the other hand writing this kind of article without any of the sources at hand has no justification whatsoever. I adhere without apology with the standard and only method of writing articles on wikipedia: first locate the best available sources and then write the article. That's easy to do in Aix. There are lot's of details that can be added later after the body of the article has been written. For example countless films are shot in this quartier, but I doubt it's worth mentioning many of them. Except perhaps for Beyond the Clouds (1995 film) of Antonioni and Wenders filmed in the church and in number 23. Mathsci (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like Mathsci should just commit to no longer editing people's talk pages after they ask him to stop. I too have had a problem with him continuing to edit my user talk to remove sock posts after I asked him to stay away from my user space. I hadn't realized it was such a common problem but I see now it needs to be resolved.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

SightWatcher was already given a very explicit warning by an arbitrator that commenting unduly on parties involved in the recent review could result in a site ban. [173] The well-documented record of TrevelyanL85A2 for covert proxy-editing resulted in his current indefinite extended topic ban. Probably even now he is breaking the terms of that ban by commenting here when his name has not been mentioned. Presumably the same warning and possible serious consequences mentioned by that arbitrator apply equally to him if he chooses to continue commenting in this way. The assumption will be that, as before, he is proxy-editing on behalf of the site-banned users Ferahgo-the-Assassin and Captain Occam and continuing the disruptive conduct that led to their site-bans. TrevelyanL85A2 has made no constructive edits to wikipedia of any kind for over five months. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrevelyanL85A2 filed. Nobody Ent 21:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Revdel question

Is block log "revdel" appropriate in the case of an obviously and admittedly mistaken block such as what happened here, where someone clicked the wrong button accidentally? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it is but whenever I've seen it discussed I've been in the tiny minority on the issue. Nobody Ent 02:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

RevDel should never be used for the purpose of hiding mistakes. Unless the content itself is problematic, the fact that it's a mistake doesn't justify hiding it. In fact, should an admin make too many mistakes, even the first one counts against them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Kinda thought it was a religious thing like this. OK. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not so much religious as clear documentation. Mistake was made, it was corrected. Anyone who inquires in the future can clearly see that; whereas if you RevDel, people might question what you're "hiding." Clear documentation covers your own ass, which is why nurses get it drilled into their heads, "If you didn't document it, you never did it!"

Of course, this is Wikipedia, not a hospital, so it's not as critical. But, it helps to be a bit OCD on these things, just to deflect future accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

On a purely academic point, there is Arbcom precedent for alteration of block logs found wrong or wanting. Although I think that pre-dated RevDel and required requesting a developer (Brion) do it, who promptly told them to get lost. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as the block log clearly and unequivocably denotes the error and subsequent correction, there's no issue - the previous "block-that-was-not-a-block" should not be held against them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I see it differently. I'm in favor of documenting, rather than pretending it didn't happen, but there's more than one way to document. To strain the analogy, if Nurse X gives the wrong medication to Patient Y, resulting in a disfigurement, we don't tattoo "This disfigurement caused by Nurse X" on the patients forehead, we file a report which goes in Nurse X's file. If we want to record that one admin make a mistaken block, post a record on the admin's talk page, don't permanently disfigure the block log of an innocent user.SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling it a "disfigurement" is a bit melodramatic, don't you think?

As for your analogy, we wouldn't tattoo the patient, but the error would be on their chart as part of the patient record. The nurse would probably get a reprimand on their own record, but the error is still documented on the patients file — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

To expand the analogy, the disfigured patient would be left to embrace the permanence of their new reality. My76Strat (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

To bring the analogy back to reality - the surgeon accidentally cut a small slice on the upper left thigh ... but the backup surgeon immediately sewed it up - it's in a place that nobody will see it, and the patient and the surgeons will be able to fully explain it later (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the only acceptable reason *ever* for altering a block log (including revision deletion/suppression/oversight) is because it contains a clear personal attack, reveals private/non-public personal information or something to that level: in other words, if it doesn't meet the criteria for suppression, it probably should not be done. There was a long-ago case from before revision-deletion that was removed from the database by a Sysadmin because of this, and I believe there have been a handful of others in the past 4 years that were of similar nature. If a block summary is such that it needs to be made non-public, serious consideration needs to be given whether or not the administrator should be sanctioned or his/her actions otherwise reviewed. Risker (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So if a user gets wronged by an admin's mistake, the user gets to bear the scars of the mistake forever. Sounds perfectly fair. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • 'tis Wikipedia. Documenting the guilty is far more important than respecting the innocent. Nobody Ent 02:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
      • That's good theater; the analogy, not so good My76Strat (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Do not confuse IPv6 addresses with accounts

Things like 2001:db8:adef:0:0:fc02:6578:0 are not accounts! They are anonymous users anagolous to 92.7.8.3, except using IPv6!--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fairly sure that 2001:db8:asef:0:0:fc02:6578:0 would be an account...... T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops! haha, my bad. Still, the message is the same - no accounts. Actually, an abuse filter would be nice to stop those kinds of things...--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I do have an account, but this isn't it.... 2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41 (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy prohibiting IPv6-like usernames? Equazcion ^(talk) 14:22, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC) 14:22, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy already prohibits usernames resembling IPs. It doesn't say IPv4 IPs just IPs so I would say we already have a policy. 2001:0:5EF5:79FD:20CB:1C04:833A:FA41 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I used to think IPv4 IP addresses were ugly, but I'm rapidly appreciating their relative beauty compared to the new monstrosities. Nothing personal, 2001:blah:blah:blah --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well said xD Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be a really good idea to ask the devs to make a simple visual indicator for anons for this very reason. Wouldn't have to be complex.    Thorncrag  17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How more "visual" can you possibly get with how IPv6 (and IPv4) addresses are structured? Unless I'm missing the point somewhere. --MuZemike 18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to come up with a legitimate username which, at a glance, appears to be an IPv6 address. See for example the typo in Jasper Deng's original post here. If a consistent styling were applied to all links to user pages of IP accounts (and said styling were forbidden for use in normal user accounts' signatures), this problem could be avoided. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually currently working on a script to highlight tunnelbroker and other special IPv6 IPs; see mw:User:Jasper Deng/v6tunnelhighlight.js (I'm not a developer at all so I'm still searching for how to complete that script).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The user script at the bottom of User:Jarry1250/vector.js reduces the clunkiness of their visual display, on a semi-related note. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 signatures must be the longest I have ever seen. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What consistent visual styling do you have in mind? :-| 92.6.202.54 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Working from Jarry's script, the bottom of User:Mann jess/vector.js shortens them, makes the hover text the full ip, and changes the style to green and italic. Change "green" to any other color if you'd like. Any other css styles will work there too. I can make it do the same for IPv4 if anyone needs. BTW, Jarry, some addresses begin with 26 (such as this one) I'm not sure of the whole spec, but I imagine the first block is more dynamic than just 2xxx. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

IANA explicitly defined 2000::/3 as the global unicast address space (i.e. the space usable by end-users), and of that only 2000::/4 (2xxx) has had blocks assigned to ISPs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive page moves that only one or more administrators can revert

Not too long ago, a relatively new user, Dandylian (talk · contribs), made a series of page moves that seem to have been either tests or vandalism: moving the disambiguation page BUT across namespaces to the previously non-existent Portal:Pen (as well as its talk page). Because of the redirects that were created as a result of these moves, I am unable to revert the changes so that the disambiguation page can be restored to the correct namespace. Could an administrator please move Portal:Pen back to BUT over its redirect and delete the redirect created from this? Template talk:Pen appears to be another unhelpful redirect. Thank you. SuperMarioMan 02:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this post only visible to me? Or am I the only one other than SuperMarioMan who sees this as an actionable request? My76Strat (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Iosif Stalin tank

Hello I am new to wikipedia and now and Admin says he/she will block me because the admin keeps removing things that I add. I need lots of help here, the admin is user:Denniss I am worried the Admin will block me just for fun for ever. Claimsort11 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Iosif Stalin tank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I changed the section heading to something more specific, but have no view at the moment on the the comment by Claimsort11 (talk · contribs). I will notify Denniss (talk · contribs) (who is not an admin, but who has issued a final warning). Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I recommend no one else comment here. This thread is duplicated at ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For the time being I've protected the page, as this appears to be a content dispute and yet there's nothing on the talk page. Denniss's use of Twinkle in edit wars and his final warning here certainly warrants a closer look. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of topic ban from Thine Antique Pen

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

---

Hello. A few months ago a topic ban was introduced on Thine Antique Pen (formerly known as Tomtomn00), that he should not collect rights. He has significantly improved and he has never requested any rights, unless he was nominated for the rights. He is doing a excellent job by creating around 100-400 stubs/day. Removal of the topic ban would help both the community and may also benefit him in the future. He has understood that collecting flags doesn't give him any status, and that's important. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 08:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It actually means more work for me! :) Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 08:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the discussion. My76Strat (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 08:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the link, Dipankan. Also, WP:PERM/A. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 08:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Not yet - that was what, barely a month ago? Although I have seen some maturity since, nothing quite resembling the overall level required. By the way, you need to post a link to original the AN discussion :-) - should probably include the multiple ANI's that occurred just before those. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It was actually 9 April. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 09:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive234#Tomtomn00. —v/r — Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 09:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• oppose. Creating hundreds cut-and-paste articles about beetle species with virtually no specific information does not say anything conclusive about maturity in editing and interaction with other editors. What is more, the original discussion expressed concerns about some "status game". Massive creating of subpar stubs for nonnotable animal species where redirects to a genus might perfectly suffice may also be intepreted as editcountitis game. - Altenmann >t 09:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness though, editors such as Ruigoland and Nielsen create similar masses of stubs daily and I'm pretty sure they invite the creating of sourced stubs on species. And its your opinion on them being non notable species, many would question that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Has the relevant WikiProject discussed the creation of stubs on beetles (like 1, 2, 3)? Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably you have to ask at the "relevant WikiProject" or "parent article" talk pages. - Altenmann >t 09:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No. It's possibly not related to the issue of the topic ban, but when discussing an editor who creates "around 100-400 stubs/day", basic information such as whether the stubs have been discussed by a suitable WikiProject should be made available by the editor concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community Nobody Ent 10:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any discussion where such a ban was placed by the community (have only looked briefly). As far as I'm aware, the ban was imposed by MBisanz as a condition of an unblock, and the condition (and the block) were then approved-of by those small sub-sections of the community that discussed them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of the admin noticeboards using Tomtomn00 as your sole parameter will give you plenty (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Done that, and like I say, it didn't turn up a discussion where there was a community consensus to place such a ban. As far as I can tell, it was imposed under the circumstances I just described. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I say give it a month and see how he operates and then give him another chance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing that has concerned me is that, while TAP hasn't explicitly requested this user rights, they have implied that they should have them on the talk pages of at least three editors. [174], [175] and partially. Therefore I feel that the limitation on requesting user rights shouldn't be overturned at this time. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge is my mentor, LadyofShallot once granted me rights before and found errors, and Dr. Blofeld has made lots of articles himself and is a great advice giver on this type of thing. I would like to withdraw this if possible. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 11:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oh great, now it appears that his so-called "well-referenced stubs" are not as well-referenced as we have been led to believe. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"appears" - well, in fact I went and fixed that all. At lest the current source is good. I'd be happy to stick another source on each article if required. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 11:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Basic rule of thumb for all stubs: minimum 2 valid sources, and an associated project listed on the talkpage. You say this error happened only a couple of times? Not sure I can believe that ... someone will have to verify all the ones you have created now. Substituting "quantity" for "quality" means more work for others now, just as if this had been a WP:CCI report (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How well referenced are yours, Bwilkins? Shouldn't you be fixing that first before complaining about better-referenced stubs made by other people? Why does the "basic rule of thumb" only apply to people other than you?

I advised against the opening of this thread, since it was clearly too early. The subject of the thread now seems to agree with me, and the thread isn't going anywhere helpful, so I suggest someone closes it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

While I am generally supportive of TAP's and Dr. Blofeld's position here, I think that is a little unfair; it was created 4 years ago.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So he's had four years to fix it? Why hasn't he? Too busy laying down "basic rules" for other people? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree BWIlkins and Fram that an extra sourced fact would go down a treat. If you could find a source for where these species actually live in the world it would make a considerable difference. Something which goes beyond what is said in the genus article. But your tone I find a little harsh here. We're all contributors and charitable individual who owe nothing to wikipedia so let's start treating each other in a more friendly fashion eh? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently I am actually adding an extra source to every Copelatus stub. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 12:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Demiurge, this is too premature, somebody please close this thread, its not constructive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Pending Changes RFC closure delay for over two weeks

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

---

Hi - I have User_talk:Fluffernutter#Closure attempted to get some feedback from Fluffernutter to the delay issue in closing this RFC but after over two weeks, we are busy in real life doesn't cut it - can we please get this closed - there is no excuse imo for such unreasonable delay in closing a community discussion - over two weeks - diff - Youreallycan 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is only about the largest discussion we had in quite a while, with a mountain of text and an extreme likelihood that any resolution will cause a whole lot of drama. It might be me, but 2+ weeks seems entirely reasonable to formulate a decent response in this specific case. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it might be you but .. Can we get a decent closure within the next 24 hours and ask an experienced policy and NPOV closer User:Sandstein to please close this - Youreallycan 21:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, closing Muhammad images took us like a month; there's a lot to wade through and weigh, and I'd personally rather have a closure take a long time and be 100% accurate in gauging consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"we are busy in real life doesn't cut it" - Yes it does. This is a volunteer project, and nobody is obliged to do anything out of their own volition. WilliamH (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes William but if there is an important community decision and you are massively busy in real life then do not accept it - that was the explanation for the non closure - busy in real life - The closers knew they were closing and had the ability to read the discussion and access consensus as it went along - Youreallycan 21:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's still a massive effort and in addition, I'd personally prefer to read the whole thing over once it's said and done and not get mentally "locked in" to an early consensus. I think if that's what they chose to do then they'd be far more objective and give a better close. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are experienced and trusted closing editors that could close this within 24 hours - Youreallycan
  • This is the latest stage in a discussion that has been going on since late 2008; it had high levels of user input and discussion, some of it linked to other discussions over the past three and a half years. Closing and gauging the result of a discussion like this is hard, and I don't see any reason to demand it be rushed, or given to someone else to close because we've decided we don't like people taking their time to study it; all that will leave us with is another unsatisfactory result. We have been debating this for over a hundred and eighty weeks now, in some form or another; why is it impossible to wait two more? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This closure is only of this single RFC not of the historic - Youreallycan
      • It can't be divorced from the previous long history of discussions, however! In general, if we have coordinators for a discussion named in advance, however, then barring catastrophe we should stick with them; doing anything else will inevitably appear taint the whole process, regardless of how fair and balanced the new closers are. It may be quicker, but it would make it very easy to dismiss the legitimacy of the closure... and that only leads to more grumbling and more RFCs in future. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My sympathies are with the administrators who have volunteered to close this RfC. I was the closer on a couple of its predecessors last year, and each time, the task proved far more time-consuming and far more thought-provoking than I'd anticipated. Delay in closing an important discussion and divining consensus is not optimal, but it is sometimes understandable, as it is here. I am sure the closers will post a closing as soon as they reasonably can. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The closers don't need any sympathy - either close it or let someone else do it - Youreallycan 22:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, you are unnecessarily repeating yourself at this point. Making the same point several times in a thread is not especially productive. Everyone reading here (including the closers when you notify them) now knows how you feel about this issue, and that your feeling is a very strong one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, please don't forget to notify the four editors who are the subjects of this discussion. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If those other guys are not aware of what is going on then perhaps thats part of the problem - I am only aware of flutternutter's involvement - please provide a link here and I will let them know - Youreallycan 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so. is right on top of this page. I don't think that most editors would notice if something related to them was brought up on one of the many administration pages we have. Also, the names of the other admins are right on the talk page, second block ([176]). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) There are four names listed at the top of WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - its still not clear - please tell me and link to exactly the users - thanks - Youreallycan 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, I understand your impatience, and I don't know all the particulars, but just looking at the surface indicates this is a giant undertaking that will require the four coordinate very closely in order to come up with a proper close that is not necessarily fast, but is consistent with the RFC itself and will be supported by the community as being reflective of the consensus in the event itself. Closing contentious events like this looked a lot easier to me before I became an admin, for what that is worth, but it really isn't easy to do. I have no issue having a discussion on the issue, but lets be careful to not underestimate the job when we do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to force a rapid close. I did the easy part, setting up the discussion, these giys have a much harder job in closing it and I don't see why pne users impatience is a reason to force them off and find someone to make a snap judgement close instead of letting the for pre-selected closers do their job. We've waited this long, I don't see what the rush is now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This situation is as big as an ArbComm case, and can have longlasting implications towards the project as a whole. Only an idiot would close it quickly, and I won't even suggest what kind of person would try and speed up a close of such an important RFC. This time it is rocket science (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"as big as an ArbComm case," - scary - Only an idiot would close it quickly, and I won't even suggest what kind of person would try and speed up a close of such an important RFC" - " Only an idiot "- This post is a personal attack by Bwilkins - as is normal round here Youreallycan 22:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can point out a personal attack, I'll block myself. Nobody has closed it early, so there are no idiots :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You are reading too much into it YRC. I would suggest calling that a misunderstanding and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bullshit. He said that someone who closed early would be said idiot. He didn't say anything about you. Secondly, quit being impatient. It's clear you are in the minority and a group of one on this issue. No one cares that you can't be arsed to sit and wait and no one wants to hear the whining. Have a good one.--v/r - TP 22:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack is here [177]. I won't even suggest what kind of person is attack by innuendo. Kind of like "I'm not saying you still beat your wife or anything." Nobody Ent 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That is an incredibly low threshold if you'd call that a personal attack that falls along the same line that farting in a crowded room is assault.--v/r - TP 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur absolutely, clearly falls into the best ignored low level sniping category of attacks/incivil comments; however the question was asked. Nobody Ent 23:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess i'll just be bold and wrap this up again as this is going nowhere. If anyone feels mortally insulted by a NPA just place a level 1 to 3 warning on the other users page to warn them, or just be nice to each other and forget / drop it. I really don't think we need an AN discussion open to discuss some comment though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrapping this one up

Can i be so bold as to suggest that we wrap up and close this discussion? I think the above discussion displays that this should just run its natural course, and i cannot see us suddenly change the responsible administrators two weeks in. Right now it feels we're just playing with snowballs for no real purpose. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Motion on procedural motions

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Request community ban for User:Runtshit

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

---

Fellow Wikipedians, it's time I propose a community ban for editor Runtshit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has, for the past four to five years, created a total 1403 sockpuppets: ([178]), used to continue disruption, trolling, and continues to stalk user User:RolandR. It's a shame to note that this this vandal, who places childish taunts, often with scatological reference to "Roland" and/or "Tony", on pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict or to Marxism, has not been subject to a community ban several years ago. Now I know how much of editors out there find votes for ban a complete waste of time and worth no value, I feel, in my honest opinion, a community ban will ultimately allow the community to step up and say "you are done here" to this editor, and if I may quote from WP:BAN, By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems with a banned user's participation outweigh the benefits of their editing. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: Due to the nominator of this ban. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

NFCC backlog

There is a large backlog of violations of WP:NFCC Policy 10c, ie non-free files missing a rationale. Can someone help with clearing that up? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs)

Resolved by motion that:

The indefinite ban of Lyncs (talk · contribs) from the Scientology topic—that was set down (as "Topic banned from Scientology") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

reverse Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners split

Resolved

(from my perspective as explained below)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

George Ho (talk · contribs) is attempting to split WP:DYK the Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners discussion into 5 different pages. Could an admin please blank and salt Template:Did you know nominations/Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, Template:Did you know nominations/The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, Template:Did you know nominations/Water by the Spoonful and Template:Did you know nominations/George F. Kennan: An American Life, which need not be created. It is fairly common policy to debate the propriety of a multiarticle hook in one location and not divide the nomination across multiple discussion pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a policy or guideline that forbids splitting an active nomination? --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It it pretty standard to attempt to hold an active debate on one page rather than open four additional ones to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Which part of policy or guideline? I do not see on in WP:DYK and its Supplemental Rules. How does standardization of common practice and unusuality of splitting matter to you? Is it mentioned somewhere? --George Ho (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• In terms of DYK rules, WP:DYKSG, rule C3. The hook as Tony submitted it is perfectly legal: once the three additional article links are subtracted, the hook counts as no more than 162 characters, well under the maximum of 200. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I get that right now. Then what about splitting an active nomination? --George Ho (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I don't see anything about that pro or con. In DYK, some deference is given to the desires of the creator or nominator. At the very least, a discussion should take place before anything so unusual as a split is done. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Unfortunately, in this case, this rule wouldn't to me work for this nomination, as I have done the alternatives that would prove pros and cons of this nom. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly don't understand your point. The rule applies here, and Tony's hook was valid under that rule: his request here is reasonable. If you are disagreeing, then I believe you are misinterpreting the intent and application of the rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• All right, I'll rephrase: if subtracting subsequent bolded titles, that would mean subtracting subsequent Pulitzer subjects, leaving one article and one subject counted, am I right? That would be 61 to 95 characters. Nevertheless, the C3 rule isn't that official or absolute yet, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, it's strict character subtraction: you count all the characters in the hook except for those in the additional bolded article titles. Nothing else is subtracted from the total count. So the Pulitzer subjects would definitely count toward the total in this case. The C3 rule is both official and absolute: it explains how you count the characters in a multi-article hook. What makes you think C3 might be optional? It's a DYK rule, as are all those listed on that page. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• According to WP:DYKSG#Other recurring issues, under G4, supplementary rules are representations of what the consensus accepts, not what the consensus must follow. Under G3, integrating a separately provided rule into main rules must be accepted by consensus. In other words, C3 is not part of the main rules yet but generally acceptable, as long as the rule may not be followed. --George Ho (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, T:TDYK considers supplementary rules as "official". --George Ho (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, there are four different pages, not five. Also, Tony gave me these messages. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Original page and four additional ones makes five.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Will reluctantly obey C3 for future multi-article nominations. Nevertheless, copyediting the hook is.... a lot of work. I have notified Casliber about this, and the DYK admin has responded "No preference" whatsoever. I will notify Daniel Case to hear his opinions about this. --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why my input is needed, unless it's because I'm seen as an expert on DYK procedures, a distinction I would not reject but not without pointing out that there are plenty of others who could weigh in.

If anything I could say makes a difference, it's that the combination hook is rather dull. They won awards ... well, this year's fiction Pulitzer notwithstanding, some work usually does win any annual award. Why are these special? The standalone hooks seem more interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether standalone hooks are prefered, the point is that the discussion on whether to have standalone hooks need not take place on 5 separate pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• The individual hooks are far more compelling than any of the combo hooks and while centralizing the discussion is probably ideal, alerting editors who may have only one or several of the individual hook nominations that a discussion is ongoing is more important than convenience for a few editors. (This sort of drama and wikilawyering is a fair chunk of the reason I walked away from DYK in the first place.) - Dravecky (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • From my perspective this situation is resolved (the content from the four extra discussions has been merged back into the original discussion). I am unsure whether the four discussions have been closed correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on the Astrology article

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

---

Would an admin please have a look at the Astrology article battle? I have not edited the article, but I have today engaged in a polite discussion on the talk page. There appear to be involved article editors reverting well-sourced content in an effort to be scientific about debunking this, well, non-scientific topic. Specifically, one such user (User:ArtifexMayhem) just removed a large chunk of sourced text [179] on Kepler's history in the article, claiming OR and synthesis, but the removed text did not appear so to me, however, I am certainly not an expert on the topic. After seeing that, I did look up Kepler's history with astrology in an astronomy textbook and the original text appears to be substantially correct. Thanks. — Sctechlaw (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm neither an astrologer nor an astronomer (though I hope to eventually be the latter), but the removed text seems correct to me. Just as a side note, pretty much all of the astronomers of Kepler's time made their money casting horoscopes and did their actual astronomy on the side. Furthermore, in reading the removed text, I found it to be remarkably neutral about Kepler's astrological activities and fairly well sourced. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Yes, all the early astronomers were astrologers indeed. In any case, I do not want to become involved in that conflict, so will you revert him please? There are other users who have been reverted as well with claims they are warring when it does not appear so to me. I have been trying to discuss scaling back the scientific disclaimers in the article with the science crowd, to encourage them to use less of a sledgehammer approach, but I'm not sure anyone's listening. Thanks. — Sctechlaw (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Looked like an edit war and I have no idea who was correct. Full protection for a week. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

American Third Position Party

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Marking IPV6 proxies

I propose a different template or a parameter for the existing template to mark these. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Or existing templates can be upgraded with {{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{value|127.0.0.1}}} round 0}}|IPV6|IPV4}} -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have extended one template as an example ({{IPuser}}):

• 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:4BA0:FFF9:17E:0:0:0:2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment of ban and block of User:Grundle2600

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

---

There is no physical way we are going to prevent him from editing Wikipedia, and most of the administrators are getting tired of dealing with him. Moreover, full-protecting all articles relating to Barack Obama is not going to happen, and it is bloody obvious at the point that Grundle2600 will not stop.

Hence, I propose that the community admits that they have lost their war against Grundle2600 and that it abandons all blocks and bans of him. Comments may be placed below. --MuZemike 07:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that we permit him to become a fully-fledged member of the community then? WilliamH (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no possible way that we can prevent him from editing here, at least not without severely affecting other good faith editors' abilities to edit. The community has failed, and the administrators cannot do anything about this. --MuZemike 07:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Iaaasi is needed a Ip range-block

Hello administrators,

I think that Iaaasi is needed a Ip range-block. There is no point in reporting this banned user for sockpuppetry : another sockpuppet will be created as soon as one of his sockpuppets has blocked. Also, said banned user abuses WP:BAN in other ways as well; because when I revert his non-vandalistic additions to wikipedia, then this banned user asks somebody to take responsibility for the content [180]->[181]. Last time I proposed an article for deletion created by this banned user, he suceeded in having the article restored by asking a non-banned user to ask an admin to restore the article [182]->[183] And no sooner had the article restored than one another sockpuppet of him began editing the restored article:[184] His last sockpuppet is User:33606d, but reporting it for sockpuppetry does not help here. I might as well suggest giving an ip range-block to him. Subsequently, his internet provider should also be notified about that this banned user edit Wikipedia in an abusive manner.--Nmate (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mate, you are right. It is odious that I dared to improve articles by adding images [185]. Also it is unacceptable that I had the insolently to remove self-links [186] and peacock terms [187]. This needs to be urgently punished with a range block 33606d (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a normal behaviour. Also, if I happen to edit an article, this banned user begins making mass edits in the same article....strange, ...very strange.--Nmate (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And what's your problem with that? Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. I did not inhibit your work, but completed it. Sometimes is it highly recommended to be someone that reviews your edits. You invented settlement names that don't even exist. There is no village in Ukraine named Batragy. The real name is Batrad' [188]. Also there is not Salanki, but Shalanki [189]. Not to say that there is not Velyka Dobron but Velikaya Dobron’ [190]. In addition you provide unreferenced demographic data that had to be corrected by me [191] [192] [193] 33606d (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. I did not inhibit your work, but completed it" says a twofold indef-blocked and site-banned user.--Nmate (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone. Your block log is not empty either. It is only a matter of luck that you were not banned so far 33606d (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And it is not a joke...Iaaasi thinks it seriously.--Nmate (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he's indefblocked again. Do we need a checkuser to find other socks? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably not "yet".--Nmate (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My assertion that there was no other sock was premature. Another sock is over here: User:Zggzgg--Nmate (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion was premature, but your attitude is kind of imature. When are you going to drop this childish behaviour and focus on improving articles? Peacock terms and self links are not recommended in wiki articles. Apparently you don't give a damn on the quality of the articles, your only goal is to annihilate me. It does not matter for you if by reverting me you damage the articles. You are gaming the system by calling the rule by which edits of banned users are revertable. You should keep in mind that obviously helpful edits must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (Zggzgg (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Banned editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, fullstop. Admin? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Appeal of British Isles Topic Ban - Bjmullan

After much thought I have decided to bring my request for a review of a British Isles topic ban given by Cailil here. The reason for this is because I believe the sanction is too harsh and I have not been treated in the same way as other editors. In ALL other cases were a topic ban has been imposed the user has either been warned or given a smaller block before been given the ban. In most cases this was for inserting/deleting the term without the support of references and the culprits in the main were very focused in the British Isles edit space. My crime is slow edited warring against a SPA and self-confessed wiki-hound; Van Speijk. Van Speijk who had already been warned in the past by Cailil was given the same topic ban as me for his part in the edit war and other sanction infringements.

A review of my edit history will show that I have many other interests outside of the British Isles and the Troubles sphere including motorsport, Porsche, general vandalism patrolling, new page review, Scotland, the world wars etc. I am particular proud of the work I did at North West 200 to include all results in the article and getting Porsche RS Spyder to GA standards.

I have already offered Cailil that I would refrain from editing at British Isles for three months, but this was rejected out of hand. I don’t particular like doing this as I have a lot of respect for Cailil who chooses to admin in a very difficult area of the project but I feel that I have not been treated in the same way as other editors. Since the ban I have not edited at the project and will continue my leave until this matter is resolved. Bjmullan (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all it should be mentioned that BJ was topic banned along side User:Van Speijk - he was not singled out.
In terms of context, The British Isles topic probation was established to prevent unsourced alterations of the term 'British Isles' in articles (removals, changes, additions) and to prevent edit-warring in articles about the the term, especially in order to stop such edit-wars spilling over from one article to another. BJ came to my page complaining about User:Van Speijk's behaviour at 3 articles during April-May of 2012: Rosie (given name); Town and Gown; and Thomas Coville. The histories of these articles are warped by a slow edit-war between Bj and Van Speijk. For example about 20% of all the edits of Rosie (given name) is the edit war between BJ & Van Speijk. Just under 50% of the whole history at Thomas Coville, and 70% of the edits this year at Town and Gown are agin, Bj and Van Speijk edit-warring.
It is my judgement that a) both users breached the probation equally (I went into more depth about that in this diff[194]), thus both were topic banned; and b) that BJ's hands are not clean when he report the issue, and that this is not the first time he has edit-warred in breach of community or Arbcom ruling, and attempted to use that ruling to "win" a content dispute since late February 2012. Bj was blocked on February 22nd of this year for breaking the Troubles RFAR probation by "relying on a technicality to edit war, and for using AE as a weapon in a content dispute"[195][196] - it is my determination that BJ's breach of the British Isles probation was a continuation of that same behaviour. Furthermore BJ warned Van Speijk of this probation himself[197] - he cannot claim ignorance of its remit (the fact that BJ has been a regular contributor to WP:GS/BI enforcement threads as well as a long time contributor to the WP:BISE page means that he has had full knowledge of the probation and has had for years).
On the matter of fair treatment - BJ could and should have reported Van Speijk from the beginning rather than edit-waring with him. He could have used WP:3O or article RFCs or any number of consensus building structures, but he did not. In end when he came to me his hands were not clean, and in terms of the probation his conduct in edit-warring with Van Speijk is just as bad as Van Speijk's. As I put it on my talk page he and Van Speijk are in pari delicto - neither had broken the probation less than the other.
The reason BJ and VS are banned from the talk space as well as editing is because their talk page interaction were circular and not based on building consensus (see Talk:Rosie (given name) and Talk:Thomas Coville. The threads revolve around the same pattern of "I can't hear you" from both parties.
In the end three questions can be asked here: 1) Did BJ breach the probation? 2) Did he (and Van Speijk) use the talk page in a less than constructive manner? 3) Was he treated fairly WRT the other user? For me the 3 answers are 'yes'--Cailil ^talk23:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cailil the only question I am asking here is; was I treated in the same way as others that have been given a Topic ban? I believe I have not and the only thing that any of us wants in life is to be treated fairly and in the same ways as our peers. Bjmullan (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that BJ, but for others to discuss this I have to explain to other sysops what, why and how I got to my decision. The set of circumstances that surround your ban are individual to the interaction between you and Van Speijk--Cailil ^talk 16:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jonathan Yip Socks

Can an admin familiar with the banned user Jonathan Yip, take a look at these edits. Obvious to me that its the same guy, and should be to any admin familiar with the sock puppet.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done --MuZemike 22:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing ban proposal

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

---

• MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs)

The original socking paid editor soliciting via elance.com (previously discussed here and here) very kindly alerted me to his latest undiscovered incarnations when he reported a different Elance paid sockpuppeteer to my talk page. I've subsequently blocked around a dozen accounts. I invite the community to formalise the de facto ban on him, something which I recommend unreservedly because there are no grounds whatsoever on which to support his inclusion in the community and his contributions. Here's why:

Explanation and analysis of spammy crap

Explanation and analysis of spammy crap This article (admins only) was created for a client. At face value, all the sources look OK. However, of the X sources, number two is given as this, but it's actually this press release. The same goes for: Citation 4, presented as this but actually this press release Citation 5, presented as this but actually this press release. Citation 6, presented as this but actually this press release The first citation is a mere directory entry, and for obvious reasons not worth dwelling on. However, what's most suggestive is citation 7, the final one. Despite being well-presented in the sources as: Tran, Mark (8 November 2005). "Business insights: The rise of a new mobile phone sector". Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 16 March 2012. ...the only instance of the subject in the entire page is a press release in the reader comments section of the article.

Given this clear dishonesty and attempts to present PR guff as legitimate sourcing, and constant attempts to evade scrutiny (currently at 34 socks), there are no grounds whatsoever for this individual to be included. To put it simply: he can't be trusted, and it cannot be acceptable to put the burden for dealing with an individual of this nature on our volunteers when it is clear that he is so patently willing to harm the project for his own gain. WilliamH (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support a ban. This is an unashamed shill of an editor who is only here for his own financial gain. Possibly the best candidate for the poster child of "bad" paid editing, IMHO. Doc talk 07:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Why am I not surprised? MER-C 07:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Heiro 08:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Userspace nominated for deletion here. MER-C 08:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A ban for disruptive editing is clearly deserved, whatever our opinions may be about paid editing. This editor's use of multiple accounts and the deception involved in hiding press releases behind a more reliable-seeming description indicates to me that this editor should not be welcome on Wikipedia. Should we coin the term 'spam washing' for this novel behavior? A cognate to money laundering. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not objecting to the idea of a ban for bad editing, but I do object to the ad hominem of adding the adjective 'paid'. This editor ought to be judged based on whether they have problematic edits or are socking, not whether they are being paid. The overwhelming number of socks and dishonest editing should be sufficient description. -- Avanu (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I agree with you that the abuse of multiple accounts and general dishonesty is prima facie evidence to eliminate this person from the community, it is specifically the receipt of payment in this case which motivates it - if they want that cheque, then the above evidence is what they have to do to get it. As I have said several times before when it comes to contributors such as this, if they want that cheque to clear then they realise there is only so open they can afford to be. WilliamH (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban for blatant dishonest misrepresentation of sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - well deserved and overdue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - with recommendation that we hire Larry Sanger to slip into his kitchen at random night time intervals over the next two years, to sit on his dairy products. --OhioStandard (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Per sockpuppets, paid editing, and misrepresenting sources. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support to say the least due to the paid editing, but the other disruption, misrepresentation, overall lying puts my level of support over the top. --MuZemike 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• SupportObvious damage is caused to Wikipedia by this editor. With paid editing and sockpuppetry along with lying and deceit, there is no reason whatsoever that he should be welcome here. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This editor has done nothing other than game the system. I'm hoping with a community ban in effect, this disruption will stop. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 00:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Cross-wiki abuse - have a look at the file usage of File:Patrick Alain.jpg. I don't have time right now to file the appropriate paperwork on the respective wikis and Meta to get global locks. You might want to reexamine the checkuser results in light of this. MER-C 08:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't dwelled on that too much only because that job specifically called for cross-wiki work. But I agree that the accounts should be locked. WilliamH (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Editing ban proposal for User:LouisPhilippeCharles

After some careful and thorough looks at the contributions of this editor and his socks, I am, at the moment proposing a site ban on editor LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After his indefinitely block, he has, to date, used 86 Sockpuppets: ([198]), together with another 9 account socks ([199]) over the period of almost a year. He continually creates additional accounts to continue his disruptive activity, and despite all recommendations from fellow administrators to consider the standard offer, he persistently refuses their input, and just has one single purpose: Disruption and evading his block to continue these obnoxious activities, well after his talk page editing privileges have been revoked. I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. I agree on how many people out there find votes for banning a waste of time, but all I can say is that if you don't like ban votes, then don't post here.

• Support: Because I am the nominator of this ban. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clearly this user has stubbornly ignoring any attempt to block or help him, and has socked intensively. Clearly WP: GAME. It's time for this user to be banned. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Mr. Wikipediana, while you may have the best of intentions, I think you are likely to end up being the subject of a discussion similar to this one if you continue to engage in the conduct which you have been asked to cease. I am supportive of the fact that ban discussions should be able to run where necessary (particularly where editors affected are posting the request or such editors have directly asked someone else to set out the proposal). However, I am not convinced that this is the case here, or that the previous discussion you opened (above) was a constructive use of this noticeboard. In such circumstances, although I may not oppose the ban proposals raised, if this trend continues, I would not oppose a proposal to restrict you from starting such discussions either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will now refrain from contributing to ban proposals now. I will now let other people decide. Ok. I'm sorry for doing so, and I will stop now. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 06:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, my previous comment is not referring to this form of contribution as that is not an issue; instead, I am referring to circumstances like this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Will be careful in the near future, and I will take all sides from now on from various editors if a ban is appropriate for an editor. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 10:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Snow close?

Could we get a snow close on this? The nom has been withdrawn and all other !votes are "Keep". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

User rights

I created my account on March, 2010.It was my fresh start with Wikipedia and wasn't aware of any policies.In June,2010 I requested for Roll-backer and Reviewer permission.But, then I was given Rollbacker, Reviewer and autopatrolled rights all together.Since then, I have become an experienced editor here.But, For my curiousity, I want to know why I was given autopatrlled right at that time?I hadn't requested for it.neither I was eligible for it according to criteria.I had created only 2-3 articles at that time.See my rights log.[[200]]Regards, Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 05:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You should ask User:Geometry guy who gave you the autopatrolled. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled was being handed out like candy for a while ... the "official" bar of 75 articles was widely ignored. Even some people with no articles at all got it. If I remember, one justification for the relaxed criteria was that admins were granted autopatrolled automatically, and many of them had created few or no articles despite running nearly unopposed RfA's, so that it was unfair to deny the status to others simply because they were not also admins. It does no harm to have it, but if you really want it gone I'm sure Geometry guy will do that (or any admin). Never mind, I see that you dont have autopatrolled anymore so it's a moot point. I think that it was just a matter of people feeling more generous than the Requests For Permissions guidelines recommended. ☮Soap☮ 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Marking of inactive bots

Please comment at this request, I think there could be some discussion. Rcsprinter (whisper) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hammersoft

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

---

Can I please have some more admin views on whether the behaviour I outlined at User:Krolar62/Hammersoft (for the purposes of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hammersoft), was incivil and disruptive (my view), or whether it's simply "rude" (Masem's view), or whether it's not an issue at all and I'm trying to "punish" Hammersoft (Black Kite's view). I'm asking here because I have major doubts that their views (as admins) would be in the majority given what Hammersoft actually did and what WP:CIV and WP:DE say about such things. I didn't expect support from Masem as he had already posted a (factually incorrect) view on the image issue in support of Hammersoft, in the process ignoring/misrepresenting me as well, but Black Kite's input as an apparent outsider was just alarmingly rude (including his edit summary of "ridiculous" [201] which I only just noticed) and seemingly meant as more of an attempt to intimidate me into dropping the complaint rather than a defence of Hammersoft or an actual engagement of my evidence. I've responded to both on the talk page, but I don't hold out much hope for resolution if it's just left to us without further outside input (I had imagined there would have been more input on an RFC by now). If I have truly misunderstood WP:CIV and WP:DR, then I would appreciate it if someone could just explain how with some actual details. Krolar62 (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfC/U is uncertified; if it remains uncertified after 19 hours, it may be deleted on the same basis. It seems you have not observed the necessary formalities, so perhaps you ought to spend more time complying with the relevant requirements, rather than being concerned about others observations as to how you have escalated this. Should you fail to meet the relevant requirements within the required time, then the page will not exist and your concern will become a non-issue. Nevertheless, I do not think that the input provided so far is "alarmingly rude". Rather, I think you need to be reminded that you have requested for others to provide comment; this means you need to be able to accept that the feedback provided by others may not be the same as your own view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What part of the formalities have I not completed? I am in dispute with another user, I collected the evidence to support my claim that their behaviour fell below the required standard, I approached the user about the complaint first, but after his outright refusal to engage with my concerns, I filed the RFC and asked others who were involved whether they would like to certify it or not. Is there a step I have missed? I was aware that if it's not certified it will be deleted. I really couldn't have put any more time into trying to resolve this dispute than I already have (about 3 hours); I don't see what I've apparently done wrong in asking here for more feedback from other admins. If nobody shares my concerns I guess I can't complain, but I will remain confused as to how his behaviour is not a violation of the cited policies. I can accept feedback, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expecting that feedback to be based on some actual facts of the case, and for that to come from uninvolved people. As I said, I don't think either Masem or Black Kite's contributions meet those criteria. Krolar62 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U - "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." Whilst other editors were involved in the talk page, the only person who had an actual dispute with Hammersoft was yourself. If this should have been taken anywhere, it would have been WP:WQA. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I chose not to use WQA for two reasons - first his outright dismissal of the complaint when I approached him, which negates the purpose of that venue from the outset leaving RFC as the next available step, and second because I do not see incivility as Hammersoft's only issue - in my view his behaviour is actually also disruptive per my evidence page, because it's apparent aim is to misrepresent the consensus or stifle further debate through evasion, repetition (IDHT) and obfuscation, instead of properly engaging. If he had just been rude but the discussion had otherwise been able to proceed to an actual supportable conclusion, WQA might have been sufficient, or I might not have bothered raising a complaint at all. But I see his behaviour as an obstacle to the discussion ever occurring properly (unless of course I did upload an image, whereupon he said he would immediately take it to FFD, where he would presumably just make the same policy points and observations that he's already made, which have already been addressed and which are awaiting answers from him).

As for the RFC single disputant aspect - I was not alone - in the prior discussion Hammersoft cited, I counted SaltyBoatr's last comment as evidence he too saw Hammersoft's behaviour as an issue - I have asked if him if he would co-certify. I could have also asked Krawunsel, who clearly also has an issue with Hammersoft's behaviour, but I thought it best not to consider him a potential co-certifier, as he chose to deal with it by trading insults rather than dispute resolution. Others appear to have had similar issues with Hammersoft in the arena of NFC discussions outside of Kim Jong-un also, so I think I am justified in not considering this to be a single issue between just me and him. Krolar62 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you'd canvassed other editors to support the RFC/U, which wasn't exactly ideal either. As for anyone who has had similar issues with that editor outside this area, that's irrelevant to this RFC/U. From what I can see, the majority of Hammersoft's disputes with other editors appears to be with editors who similarly don't want to conform with WP:NFCC, but as I see, that's a separate issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Another allegation? The RFC instructions say I have to seek a co-certifier from the people who were also involved, so that's what I did. And the other people's experiences are well within this RFC's area - it involves the same behaviour and the same policy, the only variant being the precise image/article, and who Hammersoft is trying to evade/ignore. And by now you already know that I reject your claim about what I supposedly think of NFCC. Krolar62 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, I'm not entirely sure how "What RFC/U is not for is for a single SPA with a bad case of WP:IDHT (and who displayed a remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia policy in their very first edit, interestingly) to attempt to "punish" another editor for disagreeing with his attempts to violate WP:NFCC" is alarmingly rude, given that it's simply a summation of the facts. The IDHT part is clearly indicated by the fact that they are now dragging their non-dispute to yet another noticeboard. Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's rude to claim RFC/U is not for SPAs and to claim that I have a "bad case" of IDHT, when you don't offer anything in the way of support for these claims. It's rude to claim I am seeking to "punish" abother editor, when all I've done is follow the steps advised in WP:DR. It's rude for you to repeat this view here as if I'd never commented on it when you made it the first time at the RFC, which remains unanswered [202] (this is an example of me giving actual proof of IDHT behaviour on your part, no?). It's also rude to state that I am now "dragging their non-dispute to yet another noticeboard", when this is the first noticeboard I've mentioned it on. These are to my mind all rude behaviours, both in ordinary society as well as in Wikipedia (WP:CIV/WP:DE).

For the avoidance of doubt, here is what I think is the relevant part of the SPA page: "a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless". Here is what I think is relevant from the IDHT page: "perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input". I'd appreciate it if you would just explain, based on those extracts, precisely how in your opinion that I am not entitled to use RFC/U, or that I have a "bad case" of IDHT.

Anyone can make unsubstantiated allegations like this (including the claim that I'm trying to "violate" NFCC, even though you don't offer any proof of this either), but acting surprised when the target of those allegations disagrees and asks for some supporting evidence, is not really on, certainly not in an admin. The use of IDHT on your part while you level the same allegation of IDHT at me, is simply hypocrisy, which should definitely be unacceptable in an admin.

The allegations that I am violating NFCC are not really relevant to this section, but if anyone wants to know my view on that, they can read my evidence sub-page User:Krolar62/Hammersoft and the talk page of Kim Jong-un, where I've directly referenced both the EDP and the NFC to support my position, and where several queries to Hammersoft & Masem about their position remain unanswered.

On the issue of NFC though, it should be noted that at no point have I even attempted to upload the said image yet, all I am attempting to do is have a discussion as to whether Hammersoft's intitial claim that its "unnacceptable" holds true. It really should be possible for this to happen in a way that doesn't go against WP:CIV and WP:DE (or if I've misunderstood those policies, it should be possible to get an explanation here at the administrator's noticeboard as to how I've erred in my understanding of what a proper, respectful, fact based discussion on Wikipedia looks like). Krolar62 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(1) This is the second noticeboard. RFC/U was the first. (2) I made the point that you are a SPA as part of the comment - it's a fact - it doesn't relate to the RFC/U particularly, but it's interesting background. (3) The IDHT part is clearly visible for anyone to see from the talkpage, where you attempt to wikilawyer round NFCC a number of times. (4) You were attempting to violate NFCC as you were told. Jong-un is a public figure and many photographs are taken of him, as a quick Google image search will show. The fact that none of these have been released on free licences yet is irrelevant - it is likely (as the policy says - "(Unacceptable use includes) pictures of people still alive ... provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.") that one will be at some point. If you had a problem with Hammersoft's civility then as I say above you would have been better off going to WP:WQA. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

For 1), I didn't think RFC was a noticeboard (it certainly doesn't appear to function like one), but even so, taking this as the second noticeboard, your statement was still clearly hyperbolic and needlessly barbed. In 2), the sentence construct "What RFC/U is not for is for a single SPA" seems to be unambiguous to me. The fact that I have so far only been engaged with this issue is indeed an (uncontested) fact, but I'd dispute that you meant to include it in that sentence as a mere factual observation, not when the rest of it goes far beyond mere observations into the territory of allegations. You meant something by it, so in light of the part of the SPA page that I quoted above, what specifically is it about my status as an SPA that you think was relevant background to that comment? As for 3), this is again just a restatement of your belief without considering my response (IDHT #2?) or offering any proof except the always unconvincing argument that it's just obvious. If it's obvious, it's not going to be that hard to explain to others why you're saying it. I now think that it's you who has a bad case of IDHT, the difference being that I can at least justify that claim with two pretty good examples of just such behaviour. Regarding 4), as I said this isn't the place to get into the NFC argument - the points you make on that have already been responded to at the Kim Jong-un talk page in detail and with reference to both the EDP and the NFC when Hammersoft made them originally. Your view that this would be a violation is disputed not just by me, but others editors as well. A simple restatement here is not going to put that issue to bed any time soon, given the many holes and flaws in the argument as it applies to the specific case of Kim Jong-un. Krolar62 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I think you're only confirming what I said above. I can understand why Hammersoft refused to continue to engage with you, and I think I will do the same, rather than wasting my time. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You're cutting and running because you can't use my words or actions against me at all - nothing I've said or done marries up to anything in WP:SPA, WP:WL or WP:IDHT. This is why you fell back on appeals to the 'obvious' or rehashes of the same accusations. When push comes to shove, defensible claims will always get defended. You've only wasted time by refusing to do what should be a simple exercise - match up statements of mine to conclusions of yours, like any admin is expected to be able to do. Hammersoft's refusal to engage is not relevant - that's an image policy dispute between equals - and his poor behaviour can be separated from the content issue into the RFC, as advised in WP:DR and as I've done. Your refusal to engage here though is correctly viewed in light of your status as an admin speaking on the admin's noticeboard with the sole intent of accusing me of various bad things, not least of wanting to "punish" another user. Krolar62 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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

IPV6 blocking

I have made my first spambot block for an IPV6 address. I have blocked User:2001:288:0:34:0:0:0:0/64 as well as User:2001:288:0:34:250:56FF:FE92:7B6E (who revealed their own mac address) This may infact be someone fooling around running XRumer so perhaps a longish block is not jsutified. Is there a way to check local or global contributions for the /64 prefix? Is there a way to get a talk page for the whole subnet 2001:288:0:34:0:0:0:0/64 so that what ever IP they may select from the net, they will get a message to read? And finally can we get a method to block anything that ends with 250:56FF:FE92:7B6E, since that part of the address is probably fixed, being mac based? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know: a) no b) no c) no. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Expanding a bit: a) CIDR contribs by Mike.lifeguard which is what we use to check local contribs for IP ranges doesn't appear to support IPv6 and Luxo's tool which we use for global contribs doesn't support ranges. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

But Pathoschild's stalk toy does.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not guaranteed to be the MAC address - they just might be using stateful/manual address configuration or a randomizer to obscure the MAC address. You probably shouldn't block the /64 unless you clearly see fooling around in it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism over IPv6 on wheeIs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F08:1D4:0:0:0:2 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes but how is that helpful? That tells you blocks, not edits. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There are links for edits, though I haven't made sure that it only does it for individual addresses or for ranges.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The link points you to luxo Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm .--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of IPv6 blocking at the Village Pump (technical)

See WP:VPT#IPv6 schoolblock question which is also about range-blocking. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for a longer block to vandal-only anon

98.195.163.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user, blocked in march for 3 months, simply waited block's end to start again to vandalize (this time 23 edits in 2 days). His field are the US street gangs, his style is to add hoaxes masked as serious contribs about not existant gangs, places and other datas related to crime into several US cities. User is the anon sockpuppet of Sqadgangsterkilla (see contribs), indefinitely blocked in march. Suddenly, Sqadgangster used to made the 1st edits logged in and to continue as 98.195.etc

This is the 5th time that 98.195.xx has been blocked (3 months again). Each time he waits and starts vandalizing waiting for a new block, ignoring any warning. I'm following this vandalisms from the end of january and I've 98.195 on my watchlist.

For the reasons shown, supposing that the user will start again vandalizing in september, I request for a longer block. User seems to be only interested into add hoaxes about street gangs and nothing else. IMHO, I also suppose that a longer block could be possible because 98.195.163.162 seems to be an IP used only by the "gangster". Thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be best to discuss this with the blocking admin (Infrogmation (talk · contribs)) first. Given the account's history I think that a longer block would be justified, but Infrogmation is probably the best placed admin to consider this in the first instance. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to imposing a longer block. (My reimposing a block the same length as the last one was done simply to stop the continuing damage being done by the vandal. If others who have studied the account's history in more detail think I was too lenient, I defer to their assessment.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, Comcast addresses can be blocked for an extended amount of time. Even though they are dynamic addresses, they don't change very often are not like many other ISPs. In many cases, it takes a year before they change and for some, it's more than a year. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I reported the "gangster" issue to discuss about it and to focus the problem, also because I'm following him from January. Anyway, I watched 98.195... for months and I lost his great return, lol :-) ... Thanks again for attention and regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth move situation and a wider systemic issue it highlights

Hi - as was discussed earlier in AN/I (and closed as it wasn't the venue for it), there was a contentious RM at Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move, which was closed in favour of moving (with 19 supports and 13 opposes). However, three subsequent admins reverted and re-reverted until it ended up back at the status quo. Part of the problem was a complete disagreement on whether consensus had been reached - the closer clearly thought 60% was enough, but others didn't.

It now looks like ArbCom are going to accept a separate case about the reverts; what we never really managed to do was decide how to solve the original problem, and if ArbCom do accept a case, I'm not sure that the RM should be left in limbo for however many weeks or months it takes to sort that out, especially since the actual location of the article is not part of the ArbCom case. I've talked to a few admins offsite - all of whom have recused themselves from involvement so they could offer me advice - and they believe the initial close was sound.

Two things upfront:

1. I am not even remotely trying to pretend I'm uninvolved or neutral - I voted in the RM, and I agreed with the original close.
2. I am not trying to convince some poor sod here to be the fifth admin to get involved in this sorry mess, I'm seeking a general discussion on a matter where the system appears to be broken.

We have no independent review mechanism or other natural forum for discussion which can cope with a situation like this. For AfD or CfD, etc, there's always been DRV. But moves seem to exist in a parallel universe. Move review is untested and does not have sufficient standing in policy terms to be respected by all, and the history of RfCs in resolving these things is patchy at best. I highly doubt the Perth article is the first time this problem has emerged, too. So, any ideas? Orderinchaos 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have disambiguated incoming links th Perth (a drama-free alternative to a move). DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• This will likely be among the first nominations at Wikipedia:Move review. There is a strong consensus for a move review process. The process is mostly in place with discussions continuing to resolve some issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• As I said at the Arbcom page, I think the discussion should have been closed as No Consensus, because (a) 19-13 isn't much of a consensus, and (b) far too many of the Support votes were just votes of the general format "Australian Perth is clearly the primary topic". Whether it is or not, I'd be wanting to see some justification for that. However you are right about the wider systemic issue (see, for example, the history of Yogurt). I can't see an RfC helping either, so I'd suggest that it would be better to try and get Move Review sorted out - the problem is though, like DRV, that it may just end up being the same discussion again...though it does have the advantage (like DRV) that non-involved editors will get involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at CSD

There's a big-ish back log at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. 41 may not seem so big in comparison to other backlogs but these tend to come in fairly fast so it could get out of hand. --RA (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

41 is not a backlog. Indeed, it doesn't become one until over 50. Turns out my bot was down too, which didn't help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Making botlike edits for a short while

I have a very specific situation and I can't find an appropriate place to make the request so I will ask it here. I recently created {{Navbox Copelatus}} in order to de-orphan all of the articles listed on the page Copelatus. There are 422 different species and making that many edits manually or even semi-manually would be incredibly time consuming. I would like to use bot-mode on AWB (after I have manually checked the first few articles to make sure everything works out correctly) to make those edits more easily. Can I receive permission to do so? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Upon further review, it appears that bot mode is not available for me on English Wikipedia. I had only used it on Spanish Wikipedia previously. I will register a bot account. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Or ask at WP:BOTREQ. Bencherlite^Talk 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Requests for closure going unheeded?

The section of "requests for closure" at the top of this page seems counterproductive. Admins simply aren't looking at it, and it seems that discussions are being archived before being acted upon. Perhaps admins should add it to their watchlists? — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you don't know, that the "requests for closure" isn't on this page and is transcluded from WP:ANRFC. Thus the section isn't archived by a bot, and only sections with closed discussion are archived. ^{Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that it is transcluded. I was not aware, though, that it was manually archived. Still, my point stands. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Closure of Rfc at Deaths in 2012

This has already been listed at requests for closure, and already requested on its talk page, but it's now nearing a full month after the RfC and no one has been by to assess consensus. We're getting to a stage that editors are making assumptions about the RfC due to its lack of closure. Considering this RfC determines whether we will follow the MOS for that page and a large number of others, it has a large impact on how we proceed with making a great number of changes. Could someone with a bit of free time come by and assess the arguments presented in the RfC, and close? It's really not as long as it initially appears, especially as a lot of the comments are bare votes. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, maybe I'm dumb (highly possible), but hear me out:

• the page is a list of notable deaths
• anyone on the list (most of them) who already has a Wikipedia article would already have a reference for their death in their article, and thus a plain old wikilink to their article would suffice (thus, no additional ref on the list of deaths)
• anyone/thing that is notable enough even though they have no article could be <ref>...</noref> and would have a ref on the page

Problem solved. I'm not allowed to have a supervote when I close. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, but it was proposed on the talk page recently (see the bottom section) and received some opposition. I think we may be able to hash out a consensus for it with further discussion, but my experience so far on that article has been that a lot of editors have strong immutable opinions, and coming to agreement (as distinct from consensus) can be tough. Some regulars seem to just want things to stay the way they've been for the last 9 years. With that said, even if we did that, we'd still need a standard for the citations we did need. Some editors have opposed using ref tags (<ref></ref>) altogether. I've posted my thoughts in the relevant section, but I think keeping the RfC and that topic separate may be best. Others may feel differently. Thanks for the suggestion in either case!   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, BWilkins, were you planning to close the discussion? Feel free to take your time if so, I just want to know if I should be continuing to look for a closer. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed this. :) I've closed the RFC, which I found listed on the 'requests' subpage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl! I appreciate the help! It's been sitting for a while now :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Belgian inventions

Content dispute, nothing for admins to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Another of those always-problematic nationalistic "inventions by country" categories. Newly created in the last couple of days, nearly every entry is problematic. Involved: Brigade Piron (talk · contribs) 83.101.79.66 (talk · contribs) Phoenixxl (talk · contribs) Historically ancient. Little real chance of proving anything Dairy French fries ‎ Plants and animals. Are these "inventions"? If the Brussels sprout is to be defined by its deliberate husbandry, then that's West Lancashire in England (and my great grandfather), not just Belgium because it has the word "Brussels" in the name. Brussels sprout ‎ Chicory Bloodhound Slightly related, are books "inventions"? De humani corporis fabrica Lots of firearms. 'Products' certainly, but inventions? Mk 48 machine gun Dubious claims Real number Decimal representation Radio-controlled car ‎ Railway electrification system Internal combustion engine~ Land sailing Inventions with clear histories, for being invented by Belgian expatriates in other countries. If we have a category for Inventions by expatriate Belgians then these might warrant inclusion, but they're not Belgian inventions. Bakelite Railway electrification system ‎ Repeatedly reverted and re-added. Original claim (a well-attested German invention of Siemens) removed. Clearly sourced, region matches, but it pre-dates the country of Belgium by a few centuries. Mercator projection De humani corporis fabrica Any assistance welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I really wouldn't mind some assistance either , as indicated on the electric railroad page.83.101.79.45 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I don't appreciate this as an edit summary either. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Well, all I can say is that French Fries are indeed proven to have been invented in Belgium. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC) "Always problematic" .. Please mind your attitude sir. Belgian inventions category was empty before today , hence the current activity while being populated. Dairy: As stated in the talk page , if you'd have bothered looking , then invention that was being indicated was the automatic milking machine. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=07pSAAAAEBAJ) Sprouts: Brussels sprouts have been selectively bred , particularly in the area which is now brabant , same for the chicon. Quote nl entry "Spruitkool of spruitjes (Brassica oleracea convar. oleracea var. gemmifera) werd in 1821 voor het eerst in de omgeving van Brussel geteeld en wordt in Europa al snel een belangrijke wintergroente. De oorspronkelijke naam is "Choux de Bruxelles". In het Engels gebruikt men nog steeds de term Brussels Sprouts. Spruitkool wordt binnen Europa voornamelijk in Nederland, Frankrijk en Engeland geteeld" Chicory: Quote from the chicon page : " The technique for growing blanched endives was accidentally discovered in the 1850s in Schaerbeek, Belgium." Bloodhound (St Hubertus): Bloodhound , as are 13 others are belgian official breeds , selectively bred by Belgian breeders to achieve their current shape etc. http://www.wezooz.be/video-huisdieren/hondenrassen-rasstandaard-royal-canin , http://www.kmsh.be/pages-nl/rassen/index.html Vesalius books: Those are what modern medicine and surgery are based on. They are universally acclaimed as being so. Various gun types: Absolutely , The concept of the mini machinegun , the concept of the "assault rifle", the new concept of the modern SCAR. Real numbers: Simon Stevin page quote : "According to van der Waerden (1985, p. 69), Stevin's "general notion of a real number was accepted, tacitly or explicitly, by all later scientists"." Decimal Representation: Simon Stevin again Electric Railroad: quote : "Charles Joseph Van Depoele (Lichtervelde, 27 April 1846 - 18 March 1892) was an electrical engineer, inventor, and pioneer in electric railway technology." Siemens: "Well attested" .. I have yet to see that . Inventions done abroad: If all inventions by inventors abroad would be credited to the country they were residing in at the time , I have quite a long list of things that would need to be amended. Neither Dr. Baekeland nor Charles Joseph Van Depoele were of American nationality during the time they made their discoveries. Mercator Projection Mercator was flemish which is clearly integrally a part of current Belgium and is not disputable. Vesalius again Same for Vesalius and for Simon Stevin both are flemish which is in it's whole part of current belgium. Internal Combustion: Etienne lenoir page : "Jean Joseph Étienne Lenoir also known as Jean J. Lenoir (12 January 1822 - 4 August 1900) was a Belgian engineer who developed the internal combustion engine in 1858" Land Sailing: Again Simon stevin quote "His contemporaries were most struck by his invention of a so-called land yacht, a carriage with sails, of which a little model had been preserved in Scheveningen until 2102. The carriage itself had been lost long before. Around the year 1600 Stevin, with Prince Maurice of Orange and twenty-six others, made use of it on the beach between Scheveningen and Petten. The carriage was propelled solely by the force of wind, and acquired a speed which exceeded that of horses." Not appreciating a revert comment : I don't appreciate blanking nor neurotic behavior. 83.101.79.45 (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC) To simplify this a little: Is a "Flemish" invention a Belgian invention? Belgium didn't exist then. The location in question was part of the Dutch state at the time. Is an invention by an expatriate Belgian a "Belgian invention"? Does one invention of a further instance count as "invention", or is it strictly the first invention? See land yacht, where Simon Stevin may well have built a working land yacht, but he did it centuries after the Chinese did. Many of these claims appear to be based on using WP bio articles as RS and taking their isolated claims (which may indeed be real) as the only example of such an invention, even though there were other precedents. Plants and animals. Is discovery or husbandry an "invention"? Are new models of the same basic machine "inventions"? The Browning Hi-Power has novelty, the FN FNC does not. Others are generally specific content issues that I recognise may be outside the scope of WP:AN. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Have Flemish inventions historically been indicated as being Belgian after the creation of Belgium ? Is there room in Wikipedia to make Flemish , waloon etc categories , or are countries already broad enough a scope? Is an invention done by a Belgian while he wasn't residing in his country at the specific moment he made his invention a Belgian invention ? Is there room on wikipedia to credit the actual invention , or would there be a need to create multiples ? Stevin's Land Yaght is not a separate page but a paragraph , how would one go about distinguishing it as a belgian invention if it isn't an article? Would Land sailing in general , being accredited to multiple countries not be a way to avoid problems? Does years of intense selective breeding mean nothing? Or does work that takes generations deserve some credit? The malinois did not spontaneously appear in the middle of a field. Is it an invention if it has multiple patents and innovative unique design? Can one compare "a shovel" equal to "a gun" ? 83.101.79.45 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC) To me, this sounds as another case of categories which often results in historically incorrect statements - The two quotes "Brussels sprouts have been selectively bred , particularly in the area which is now Brabant, same for the chicon." and "Spruitkool of spruitjes (Brassica oleracea convar. oleracea var. gemmifera) werd in 1821 voor het eerst in de omgeving van Brussel geteeld en wordt in Europa al snel een belangrijke wintergroente. De oorspronkelijke naam is "Choux de Bruxelles". In het Engels gebruikt men nog steeds de term Brussels Sprouts. Spruitkool wordt binnen Europa voornamelijk in Nederland, Frankrijk en Engeland geteeld" - Belgium as we know it now did not exist in 1821 (actually, the whole area was United Kingdom of the Netherlands) - and unless the 'omgeving van Brussel' ('area around Brussels') is defined more precisely, Brabant could be anything of "Noord Brabant", "Flemish Brabant", "Walloon Brabant", "Duchy_of_Brabant" or Antwerp province (Antwerp is currently the Belgian province surrounding Brussels). Not to say that 'voor het eerst geteeld' is not the same as 'invented' - the invention may have been somewhere else, but it was cultivated for the first time in 1821. Similar for De humani corporis fabrica - that was in 1543 (not to say that the book may describe inventions, but the book itself is not an invention). Moreover, to extrapolate the invention of the "automatic milking machine" (actually, "milking apparatus", by the way, the patent is for a part of an automatic milking machine) to the invention of Diary is also questionable - that is not the invention of Diary, it may be the invention of the automatic milking machine. Whereas for some countries it can be properly and precisely defined - there are many things which can not be divided by country, especially not in an area where country-borders have been changed, redefined, countries have been split (and in history been combined). Either make this type of categories historically correct where possible, or consider other ways of splitting categories (if necessary) which contain items which 'go back in time'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC) For my part, I do not see why a single idea cannot be in more than one category of inventions - for an idea like Remote controlled Car will involve several aspects, all of which can naturally be invented by different people at different times. In order to defend my inclusion of R-C cars, here is the source I was using: Jean Bourguignon - not excellent I know, but as good as any case that is made on the original page for the invention - I was not aware that category choices had to be cited... Furthermore, on the subject of the inclusion of fire-arms, they are a technical product which requires development like any other. There is also a precident for their inclusion under from the category:Australian inventions. I did think that accrediting Belgium with the World Wide Web (Robert Cailliau) was a bit far-fetched so left it out. I also think that a category for "Belgian expatriot inventors" would be rather facetious, cannot the page be categorised under BOTH Belgian and (the other country's) invention? Brigade Piron (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Raised at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Category:Belgian_inventions Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For the corps

I presume the administrative corps would want to know and perhaps give salutations when so unequivocally deserved. My76Strat (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

John Daker requesting unblock

Nothing to do here. --MuZemike 14:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi... I'm writing on behalf on User:John Daker. He'd like to be unblocked, and has sent several requests via e-mail to administrators and the unblock ticket request system but can't seem to get a response let alone any traction. He's very sorry for what he's done and would like another chance to be a good contributor. Please help. Thanks Mac Huff (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Creating a new user name just to get unblocked on your previous one are not the best way of showing that you have changed our behaviour that led to the block in the first place. But let's see what the admins say.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC) According to UTRS Ticket 1975, he received a response from administrators. They declined his request. This is a case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The reason the request was denied is that it did not address the reason for the block. We have no reason to suspect that this editor will behave appropriately.--v/r - TP 20:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC) How can Mr. Daker get his request approved. Is there ANYTHING he can do? Or should he consider himself banned, and come back under a new username in a few months time? Huff Daland Dusters (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC) WP:Standard Offer is one. If he is banned, which he isnt yet, then coming back under a new username will only make things worse.--v/r - TP 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC) This is the guy done for sockpuppetry? Secretlondon (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, and he was continuing the same garbage just three hours ago, see Special:Contributions/John_Draker. He has not changed, and he should not be unblocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Why not just put forward the ban proposal now? Given the serial sock puppetry to get an unblock, there's more than enough of a case to ban them now. Saves the usual "they're de facto banned" argument that inevitably crops up later. Blackmane (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Let's get the ball rolling then... Siteban for User:John Daker Oppose - A great although sorely misguided editor, looking at his early contributions from December 2011 shows a great deal of potential. I implore the community to assume good faith and give this man another chance. Cheers! Fix it Flex Jr. (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC) What a peculiar first edit... --Atlan (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

NetRange?

Are these, NetRange's?

• 2620:0:1CFE:28:B1BD:AEAE:38AE:D4C (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
• 2610:8:7800:14:20A:95FF:FED9:8FDE (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)

I've spotted these in the past week. Strange?--Hu12 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They're IPv6 addresses. Hut 8.5 21:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• This demonstrates why MediaWiki:Watchlist-details needs to have a notice about IPv6.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It now does. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay closed

An arbitration case regarding User:GoodDay has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.
2. GoodDay is strongly warned that, in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

An Xn4 Sockpuppet investigation

It would help if there were a few more contributors to this discussion: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xn4 so that it can be decided what to do. -- PBS (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected admin talk pages

What's the deal with longterm protection of some admin talk pages I've come across? E.g. User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise is semiprotected since March, indefinitely. Wikipedia:Protection policy#User pages says that "User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users." I've seen other permanently semiprotected admin talk pages without a "conspicuously linked" unprotected subpage as advised for those rare cases justifying long-term protection. So this is not about FPaS in particular. Still, I'd notify him of this discussion, if I could. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Given what I'm looking at the talk page log, there was a lot of personal attacks against FPaS, including the need to revdel certain additions. Semi-prot seems to be appropriate if a user's talk page is going to attract such attacks. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Informed him. Some Admins get a lot of abuse (as do some editors), and if this is necessary it's necessary. And it's rare. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So that also exempts an admin from linking to an unprotected subpage as the policy suggests? In that case, shouldn't the policy be updated to reflect actual practice? --195.14.222.188 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen any benefit in that solution. If you have a need of protecting your house from burglars, you don't lock the front door and then put a sign on it saying "the back door is open". You could just as well leave the front door open right away. What's the difference between harassers vandalizing the one page or the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I understand your perspective. It wouldn't make much sense to have such an unprotected subpage, much less if it's prominently linked from the main user talk. On the other hand, at least vandalism there would be out of sight of onlookers. And a bot could regularly autoblank that page to discourage the vandals/trolls. It might even help calm them down if they can act out in a secluded sandbox page within your userspace. Just a thought, but imho it would still be a net benefit to have. Then again, I speak from my perspective as constructive IP editor. For me, protected user talk pages can be very inconventient e.g. for inquiries in the case of erroneous reverts and such (no, I do not want to register, don't bother). --195.14.222.188 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. In my specific case, my page has been the object of too much harassment from several banned users, so it has been necessary to keep it protected and will likely continue to be. Sorry about any inconvenience. To the IP: Would you care to explain under what prior account or IP you encountered me and why you had a need of contacting me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon your talk by chance. Nothing to do with you in particular. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, no problem then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Future has an excellent point that an unprotected subpage is likely to be vandalised. There is still the issue that IP editors need to sometimes be able to contact users with protected talk pages - therefore I've updated the policy to suggest they post at WP:ANI instead in those cases - I suppose its not ideal, but there is no point in suggesting a venue which doesn't attract high-traffic and I'm not sure where would be more suitable.

It is a real issue that IP and new editors should be able to contact every editor - though obviously people shouldn't have to put up with continued abuse to allow that to happen. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the ANI header accordingly as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What about pointing to the help desk instead? That might be a less intimidating option (and fewer unexpected consequences) and it is well-watched and staffed by top-notch regulars. Franamax (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea :). I've left the header changes on ANI as is in case anyone does land up there so they aren't left in a contradictory rules situation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know if there's even anecdotal evidence for the claim that an unprotected subpage is as likely to be vandalized as the main talkpage, or whether it's pure speculation. I've had to communicate through unprotected subpages method now and then, and it's worked ok when it's been available in my experience, though it hasn't happened often. I do like to think that persistent trolls / vandals can figure out how to enroll and age accounts if it suits their purposes. 69.228.171.139 (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In the case I'm talking about, I've had just about everything vandalized: my user page, my talk page, all of my talk page archives several years back, any random talkpage I had recently posted to, you name it. To see what happens if you offer this guy an unprotected page, look at the last 1,600 or so edits on pl:User talk:Beau. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverted ANI revision. It's already too long -- we frequently have newbies missing the notify who your talking about notice that's buried in there. Secondly, how would a newbie IP editor who finds a talk page semi'd know to go look on the ANI header to find out it's okay to post the message on ANI? Message referencing ANI should go on the semi-protected page itself. Nobody Ent 10:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I initially suggested ANI as a suitable venue before Franamax pointed out that the help desk would be more useful. At that point I felt the ANI notice was still worthwhile - but you make a good point that it is already cluttered, so meh. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"2602" questionable accounts / mac addresses

Hello.

I cannot notify the user who I am expressing concern over, firstly, because I am not exactly sure what is going on here, secondly, I do not know if there is any feature on Wikipedia which addresses a user by a mac address under certain conditions, and therefore, the user may not be intentionally "username hopping".

If you type into the search box, User talk:2602, you will see many suggestions appear of usernames which appear to be mac addresses which begin with that number. I noticed that at least one of those addresses was blocked for BLP / neutral point of view violations. What also confuses me is that I would figure that if a sockpuppeteer was all that prolific, (s)he would not use such obvious usernames with the same prefix, which would be easily trackable, possibly indicating that the number assignment is automatic.

I'd appreciate if somebody would provide assistance with this matter to explain what is going on here and for any administrators to use their discretion to determine what is going on and what should be done. I do not know if there is any previous discussion regarding this issue. I began to notice this starting this month. Thanks. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't Mac addresses, they are IPv6 addresses. We are only slowly getting used to them. There have been a couple of discussions about technical and administrative issues regarding the new protocol. It's been enabled only for a few days. Basically, these are just normal anon IP editors just like you, only using the new IP system. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So how did they edit before this was enabled? Were they unable to edit? 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there a possibility that it is the same editor in the "2602" range, or is "2602" a common prefix? I'm not as familiar with these. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a large range, I believe, and before IPv6 they were assigned a "normal" IPv4 address which they edited under, much like the one which you are using.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Are you speaking of the fact that these IP addresses have recently been enabled on the Internet, or on Wikipedia? Are you stating that if the server does not allow you to connect with an IP V6 address, you will automatically be connected using an IP V4 address? Thanks. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Both, actually. While IPv6 has been technically deployed for a decade, it hasn't been utilized to its fullest extent. On June 6, we had World IPv6 Launch Day whereby a coordinated effort was made to implement IPv6 for major websites worldwide. Wikimedia (Wikipedia's parent company) participated in this. Prior to this, IPv6 enabled end-users who accessed Wikipedia did so via Tunnel broker. --Jayron32 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And they still appeared as IPv4 users (i.e. only their tunnelbroker IPv4 addresses were recorded).--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Most IPv6 users at the moment probably use a dual-protocol stack, which means they have both an IPv4 address (possibly behind NAT) and an IPv6 address. So previously they would have edited using IPv4, but as soon as we added an AAAA record for en.wikipedia.org, they were automatically switched over to IPv6. -- Tim Starling (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

2602::/24 appears to be CenturyLink, the third-largest phone and internet provider in the United States. --Carnildo (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(for non-nerds this means 2602:00**:*) I thought AT&T had a monopoly...--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference: Very few of the pages at Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:2602 have anything at all to do with MAC addresses. (Where applicable, the bottom 64 bits of an IP version 6 address are actually modified EUI-64 addresses, not MAC addresses.) The ones without "FF:FE" across the 6th and 7th groups have nothing to do with MAC addresses, for examples. User:2602:306:C497:E409:203:93FF:FE76:6A20 has a modified EUI-64 address, as too does User:2602:306:CD10:9B50:226:BBFF:FE12:2ACD, whose IP version 6 address was derived from the MAC address 00-26-BB-12-2A-CD (a MAC address from a range assigned to Apple). User:2602:306:C5B0:920:55F8:1F6C:3C60:6FD6 has not.

And 2602:300::/24 is AT&T: by the looks of it its 6RD range, registered in June of last year. AT&T assigns prefixes of lengths 48 to 56 to its business customers. It doesn't say what it's doing for residential customers, with U-verse and the like, merely providing soothing "Yes, it will all work for you without your knowing about it." platitudes. Although the plan, at least as of two years ago and seemingly confirmed last month, was carrier-grade NAT using 10.0.0.0/8 for IP version 4 and IPv6 rapid deployment for IP version 6, trialled last year and deployed this.

Given the combination of that and what the ARIN database record says, every AT&T residential customer using 6RD is effectively getting a 60-bit-long prefix (AT&T's own 24 bits plus 32 bits for the customer's IP4 address), if things are indeed going to plan. To the customers, it means that they get the ability to use every Ethernet card in existence on their home LANs, 16 times over. To you, it means that you'll need to use /60 rather than /64 when range blocking anyone within 2602:300::/24, if you want to block every computer in their house, including the one in the little brother's room. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

People will rarely use more than a single /64, but of course if no-one else uses a /60 it doesn't hurt.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible issues on Lord Roem RFA?

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

---

Just a quick heads-up to say that some agitation against Lord Roem (talk · contribs) over on Wikipediocracy, concerning his clerking in a current case (in which he's been fully supported by the arbitrators), seems to be having an impact on his current RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lord Roem. It might be worth keeping an eye on it to head off any trouble at an early stage. Prioryman (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry about it too much, it is just harmless conversation, no one is suggesting anything improper that I found. Everyone has a right to their opinions, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, do you feel that those Wikipediocracy discussions are influencing people to oppose his RfA, or that some of those sneaky banned users are voting in socky stealth. In other words what precise, quote, "impact" are you asserting is happening here? For the record, I post occasionally at that site but also cast a vote of support for Roem. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion lead me to look at his record, which seems spotless. Is that somehow bad? I might actually vote in an RfA for once.→StaniStani^{COI: Wikipediocracy}  13:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• LR has withdrawn his candidature for RFA. Suggest closing this. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:FS Ban lift request

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

---

I was banned from WP:FS before it became inactive. I would like to engage in discussions about reviving it since I have realized that I have many sound files to create (like those found on this White House page) that could use the feedback from such a group of editors. Can I have my ban lifted so that I can initiate some discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you were banned and why the reasons no longer apply? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me I was banned for a bunch of racist lies that never applied. You will have to ask someone else.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Does the original discussion that led to your ban still exist on Wikipedia? And if so, can you link to it? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a two part ban. I don't recall where the conversation took place, but it was either here or at WP:ANI. IIRC, I was banned because my contributions to WP:FS were above average. I.e., my nominated files passed at a higher rate than the average pass rate for the project, but since that is not good enough I was considered disruptive to FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nevermind, I found it. Here's the archive of the original discussion. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• You say the ban was based on "a bunch of racist lies". However, I don't see any mention of racism here; at first glance it looks like a discussion of real editing problems. Could you clarify? Is that the wrong ban discussion, or have I misread, or something else? If you're keen to get "many" more sounds featured, then I'm concerned that the problems which led to that ban might not have been overcome. bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (looks like this comment was accidentally deleted in an edit conflict; I restored it manually)
  • IIRC 44 of my last 56 nominations had passed, but suddenly people started taking actions against my nominations although there was no consensus on changing the FS policies. Instead, a request was made to form a wikilynch mob.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Repeated accusations of racist lies are pretty serious. Could you point out which bits of that ban discussion are racist, please? bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)x2 I see no reason to even consider an unban appeal when you're so unwilling to admit any fault of your own, but instead characterize those participating in your ban discussion as racists and/or liars. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never understood why this ban was enacted. When you nominate a bunch of content for featured status and most of your nominations succeed, how is that disruptive? People objected that you were exploiting loopholes in the process — why didn't they simply start a discussion to remove said loophole rather than the one who was supposedly using it? I see no racist bits either, so the allegations are rather concerning to me, but that's no reason to defend the ban itself. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• oppose unban, based on TonyTheTiger's completely baseless accusation of "racist lies" against the people active in the original ban discussion. Whatever the merits of the original ban, this is unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you add and subtract, at a time when my pass rate was above that of the project I was nominated to be banned for the following reason TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured. Do you understand what racism is? That is racism.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Uhm, no. It is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Um, what? How is a comment that makes no reference to race whatsoever in any way racist? I think you're the one who doesn't understand what racism is, and you're only digging your hole deeper by continuing to make such allegations. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • (ec)Oh yeah. I forgot. They have to use the N-word for it to be racism.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • This is absurd. I'm assuming that when most people read "nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured," they understand it as "nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured." Not even mentioning this entire discussion happened on an online community, where most people know other people by their username and nothing else, and thus have literally no way to even know a person's race other than through voluntary admission. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @Tony: You're kinda pissing me off now. No, obviously they don't - if they were referring to people of African descent in general. For example, "Your people keep flooding FS with stuff" could be reasonably construed as racist. "Black people keep flooding FS with stuff" could be reasonably construed as racist. "[Insert a single user's name here] keeps flooding FS with stuff" is not racist, but an allegation against that single user. Now, either provide some evidence to support why you believe the comment above was racially motivated, or withdraw your allegations of racism. If you continue to make these allegations without such evidence, I will log into my other account and block you. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you explain exactly how that is racist? I don't see it. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • See Racism. It was discriminatory and hurtful. Can't prove motivation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • See paranoia. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Do the math. I do not lie. My nominations were above average for the time period.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I have no reason to believe you're lying about your statistics. You're not. It's easily verifiable. But that's not the issue here. I stated the issue immediately below. And this whole situation is really just proving my point. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The original topic ban was not enacted for having "nominated files passed at a higher rate than the average pass rate," but for gaming the system, WP:POINT violations and a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The fact that you are here, not only saying that you don't understand the reasoning for the ban (at one point calling it a wikilynch mob), and then accusing other editors of "racist lies" where there is a recorded history (and no racist lies present) tells me that the behaviors that got you banned would likely not change and thus lifting it would be in poor form. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see nothing remotely racist in the ban discussion, and certainly no sign that TTT was banned from Featured Sounds because his "nominated files passed at a higher rate than the average pass rate for the project". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I am willing to strike all comments about racism in favor of discrimination. It might not be that I am black. Maybe it is because I am too sexy or something.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That's hardly an improvement, and I think you know that. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • It is actually an improvement. I can prove I was discriminated against.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • You've yet to do so despite multiple calls to back up your claims. Do so now, or remove all of these accusations. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I didn't even have any idea you were black - that's how little evidence of racism there is here. Shouting "racism" whenever anything goes wrong in your life belittles those who genuinely suffer racism, and there should be no room for it here. Accusing others of racism is itself a very serious charge - so provide the proof or withdraw your accusations before someone sees fit to block you for continuing to make unfounded serious allegations against other Wikipedia editors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the whole "it's all racist lies" thing is completely unfounded in the text of anything brought up so far. I see no reason to lift a ban on a person who has such a loose grip on reality. --Jayron32 17:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In case you weren't following along, I have retracted racist for that which can be proven. (discriminatory)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You've retracted nothing, and supported nothing with evidence. This is your final warning; put up or shut up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Do you consider it consistent to describe contributions that pass at an above average as "generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't consider it to be discrimination, and certainly not racism. You've been blocked for 48 hours for your disruptive conduct here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose - Jayron32 puts it perfectly. Tony, we have no clue whatsoever whether you're white, black, yellow, red, a little green man from Mars or a multi-tentacled blobby thing here on Wikipedia; judgements are based on the quality of your contributions and the character of your comments. And from the above I can clearly see that there is no need for the lifting of this topic ban; you refuse to admit that there could be anything at all wrong with your contributions that led to the topic ban in the first place, instead tossing out a lot of WP:NOTTHEM that, to be blunt, has no grounds in reality. The comment you link here is neither racist or discrimintory, and comes nowhere near being either by any reasonable person's definition of either term; indeed, it can only be seen as such from the viewpoint that any opposition to one's self must be that, because it couldn't possibly be yourelf - and, given that obvious attitude, there's nothing that can be done here. Take a deep breath, drink a cup of tea, and look at things from the perspective that maybe, just maybe, there might be something about your editing that was legitimate grounds for the topic ban, ask yourself "have I changed what caused these concerns?" and, if the answer is yes, ask again, without making accusations of racism or discrimination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• [ec with Bushranger] Oppose per Jayron and everybody else here. Striking "racist" does not take away from the fact that you claimed racism first, and how this would be "discrimination" is likewise unclear (to put it diplomatically). I just re-read that entire topic ban discussion from 2011 (which I followed at the time though I did not comment), and even a year later I am baffled at how many editors of unimpeachable standing (content contributors, admins, and everything in between) you have managed to totally rub the wrong way. BTW, those concerns are still valid in other areas: reviewing one of your DYK nominations is not a pleasure but a duty.

  What this made and makes clear is that if there is discrimination it is discrimination against you, the individual disruptive editor who turns trite into DYKs and GAs etc. because there is no rule that says trite can't be promoted. It is possible that you are discriminated against because you're black, or not, or from Chicago, or more muscled than the average Wikipedia-editing geek, sure, but the odds are against it. Those topics bans were put in place for valid reasons with very broad agreement that they should be enacted; what's surprising is that no more serious sanctions were taken. That you don't see any of this is beyond me. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I just got done reading the original ban discussion and, though I found the original FS ban a little extreme, I also find it extremely hard to believe that anyone with enough sense to write a complete sentence (which TTT obviously has demonstrated) can honestly, for one second, think that the ban was motivated by racism, much less voice that opinion as part of an unban request (whether you have now retracted the accusation or not is irrelevant). Therefore I think you're trolling, so I also oppose lifting the ban.Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting ban - unsubstantiated accusations of "racist lies" indicate that the ban was probably well-founded, and continues to be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek, et al. Well, this went all the way bad didn't it? If Tony can show that he's able to edit in this area without disruption, then I might consider supporting some sort of provisional lifting of the ban. But not now, not like this. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Massive categorizing of Mormons as "American expatriates"

[203] shows a huge number (several hundred) of Mormons being suddenly taged as being "American expatriates" without sound rationale AFAICT -- some getting listed as expatriates in 8 countries! This occureed after creation of a huge number (many hundreds) of "expatriate" categories on 13 Jun, which followed a huge number of decategorizing of notable US ambassadors, and so in in bot-like speeds. GO notified now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The first one I checked was an LDS Church missionary, and edit summaries for many other individuals indicate likewise. This makes sense to me. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW, any Mormon missionary is an "expatriate" to every country he has visited as a missionary? Even wwhen it is 8 different countries? Amazing position, to be sure. I rather thought an expat was a person who left the country for an indefinite period of time and established an actual residence in a specific foreign country. And what about the listing of every Ambassador as an "expatriate" even though the embassy is legally part of the US? Can you explain those? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the cats were for LDS, but many others were for expatriate. LDS is fine, but expatriate is simply incorrect and insulting. Many of the subjects hold public office, which would be impossible if they actually were expatriates. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Such classification is miles off from both the dictionary definitions and the common meaning of the terms. All included elements of banish, withdraw from allegiance etc, or something that would need to be stretched a mile to include it. Why would someone do something that goofy? North8000 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

See the first sentence of the "Extraterritoriality" section of Diplomatic mission — embassy properties are legally still part of the countries in which they're located. And being in an expatriate category doesn't mean current expatriate; I've not checked, but if she's not already in one, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf needs to be added to an expatriate category because her current residence in Liberia was preceded by several years of residence in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So your definition would support anyone who has spent more than a short vacation in a country as being an "expatriate"? IOW, Obama is an "Expatriate American in Indonesia" as a proper category? Really? I hate to say this - but that is an absolutely incredible position to have. Collect (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an unhelpfully broad definition of "expatriate". Can't we even make a distinction between current expats and former expats? (For what it's worth, I've spent a couple of years as an expat; but I certainly don't consider myself one now that I've moved back to the first country). bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's already been established that there are multiple definitions of expat with "Exile" being one, and "A person who lives outside their native county" being another. Also the 8 example given above is an extreme example and a straw man in my opinion (most Mormons these days don't go on 8 missions, and this guy died in 1903). That said, there is probably a problem with the categorization since so many people seem to be taking such a narrow definition of the word. It's no reason to assume bad faith on the part of GO however. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The common meaning does not apply to somone who is temporarily overseas. North8000 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Bobrayner — I like the idea. Both current and former expatriates should be included, and it would help to separate them. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Stretching the use of "expatriate" in this way waters down the meaning so much that it is virtually impossible to understand what is intended. Someone who is banished from a country is an "exile", someone who voluntarily lives much of their life outside their country is an "expatriate", someone who is temporarily outside their country for a limited time might be a "tourist" or a "missionary" or in "foreign diplomatic service" or whatever, but they are not an "expatriate",. and calling them so flies in the face of the commonly accepted meaning of the term. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why is this at AN? Good Olfactory last edited around 09:00 today, you left a note on his talk page around 16:00 today. If consensus is to remove the cats, it won't take an admin to do it. There's already a BLPN thread about this. Give conversation some chance first, please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed—see here. I don't intend to participate in any discussion here about substantive issues. If users are going to rush to AN before even giving me a chance to respond on my talk page... —well, do and decide what you want here, but I won't be discussing the matter here. If anyone wants to talk about it further with me I'm at my talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have no means of know when you are or are not online. In the case at hand, where automated or semi-automated edits are made in profusion, I felt that the more eyes the better. How boradly do you intend to view "expatriate" and ought it include, for example, American ambassadors? I think the consensus here is that the "Mormon missionaries" who are already identified as such should not also be labeled "expatriates." Cheers - It would be really nice if you did it, though. Collect (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • "I have no means of know when you are or are not online." Except for: (1) whether or not I am making edits; (2) the time zone posted on my user page; (3) my edit history, which will reveal a pattern of times that I typically make edits; and so forth. A little investigation could go a long way. But that's fine—some users prefer to rush things off for administrator intervention rather than wait. I just didn't think it was necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oddly enough LINK, Brits seem to term their citizens who are students abroad "expats." (So, when Jack Kennedy was in London in 1935 and visited a pub frequented by Yank expats, if someone had referred to Jack in that fashion, he would likely not have quibbled with such a designation--thus: "Um, 'expat'? I think not. I'm just a student. And, Pops is but here as the Yank ambassador to the Court of St. James, so--- ")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There's nothing in that article to suggest that it's intended for temporary schooling. Indeed, seeing as it deal with international schools (which are typically home to children of actual expats, whose jobs essentially keep them permanently out of the UK) it would seem "expat" was meant in the normal sense there. I've always found it curious that people are happy to extrapolate entire national behaviours from single data points. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • None of those schools is intended for a one or two year programme -- some look at having children for up to 15 years - which, I would think, means the children likely are away from the UK for a quite extended period of time. Unlike the Mormons (and the list of those added to the xpat categaories look like they were specifically chosen as Mormons for the changes, as are the later edits by the same editor aimed heavily (actually recently - exclusively) at Mormons, Mormon "expatriates", "Godbeites", additions of quite non-notable people who were Mormons, and Polygamy issues. Alas - I do not have bots to repair the many hundreds of articles and categories affected. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Need more mentors

I think I need more mentors who would frequently spend time mentoring me: here is User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions. Temporary or permanent, I need another mentor. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a thought: If you "need more mentors", you probably shouldn't be editing. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • If at this point you still require mentors and "need more" of them, then I have to ask if you are competent enough to contribute to building an encyclopedia. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I spent time expanding The Boys in the Bar, making sandboxes, added Drew Carey thing in Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, cleaning up images that are inadequately mentioned in articles and that are sufficient mentioned in articles whose topics are images themselves, etc. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know how to read the above comment. But anyway George, instead of seeking mentors, you may wish to take a break from big edits and just look at the contributions of other editors. I wouldn't mind if you went through my edits from my day one, and followed my sloppy steps in the mud here. Take note of how I stated edit summaries and how I dealt with other editors on talk pages, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What "big edits"? --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly how I put it, Canoe. Anyone who asks for more mentors than they currently have is most likely not doing something right, and probably shouldn't be editing at all. Especially someone who's been around for 7 years. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I created Musicians of the RMS Titanic, and I got scolded for doing inadequate communication and merging all people. Would this make me incompetent? --George Ho (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Rather than "mentors" per se, I think what George Ho really needs is someone to play devil's advocate. IIRC, George was taken to task on ANI for mass nominations of templates at TFD. For a time, there were a couple of editors bouncing advice around, but now it's gone quiet. That being said, George, I suggest you take a voluntary break from doing any nominations and spend some time studying Xfd's and understanding the rationale others are using for their nominations. In fact, since your mentor(s) aren't around, you may want to pose any queries on the talk pages of the Xfd's that you're interested in. Blackmane (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have participated in WP:articles for deletion/Personal life of Jennifer Lopez, WP:articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, and WP:articles for deletion/Ty Russell (2nd nomination). Does it mean something? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also, I wanted to request a deletion review on one of my deletion discussions before the block: WP:articles for deletion/Fictional women of All My Children, volume 2. However, a deletion review is required by approval of mentors, also part of agreement. I just wanted to revive articles that I nominated for deletion, unless it's awkward --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok guys, you might want to please dial back on your rhetoric a touch. My understanding is that George is an editor who has special needs when it comes to interacting with other editors, and how his edits fall within broader Wikipedia policy/guidelines/process. It's apparently helpful if he has a few people checking over his edits.

So anyway, I'll endorse this request and ask if anyone (really several someones if possible) would be willing to help out. - jc37 21:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll pardon the tone, but - Nice to see so many editors happy to line up and hit submit to add their snarky bitey comments, but when genuine help is requested, they apparently dive for cover. I wonder if a single one of you commenting actually bothered to look at the page and investigate his request. I'd trout the lot of you, but it'd be a waste of good fish.

Oh and major kudos to masem for helping, and without any fanfare here either. - jc37 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How to best go about deleting good edits by a banned user

I needed some advice on this matter.

Earlier this week, Sheynhertz-Unbayg (talk · contribs) had another round of accounts banned for sockpuppetry. Sheynhertz-Unbayg has been banned for over two years for assorted disruptions to the community, yet continues to attempt to contribute via a vast array of sockpuppets (nearly 250 as of last count).

Anywho, per WP:BAN, all of the accounts' edits should be summarily reverted. For now, I've been dealing specifically with sock Shalshelet (talk · contribs), which is the newest sock I first noticed. However, a great deal of them are "positive" edits and are particularly tricky to revert cleanly. I've tagged a number of pages with criteria G5 deletion tags, but reverting other edits in other places is more tricky (where he moved around information to disambig pages and such), and I'm not sure if a few edits should be reverted at all, since they were actually helpful.

Basically, I'm not sure if all edits should be reverted on principle, or if I should ignore all rules and let the helpful ones sit. Any advice (and some outside eyes) in the matter would be greatly appreciated. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think even if the edits added value to the article, the fact that they came from socks of a banned user makes them worth being reverted. Sheynhertz-Unbayg should just get lost and RTV - those edits don't erase his or her sins. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Last time I looked, there was not a concept in WP:BAN that all such edits should be reverted, only that they can be reverted. I've always taken that to mean it is ok to ABF towards the individual edits and remove them if you think they may be pursuing an agenda, misrepresenting sources, etc., without having to check them carefully. But if you think they do hold up to scrutiny, it's ok to leave them in. And because humans differ from one another, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all way to tell what effect reversion (or any other action) will have on another person's behavior, especially if that person's behavior is already abnormal enough that they managed to get banned. If your reading of this particular person suggests a particular course of action, then go for it, but don't overgeneralize. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3 has some further discussion. 69.228.171.139 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Any argument for reverting all edits are ridiculous. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Reverting helpful edits is no worse than blatant vandalism and could be construed as disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So you can do anything you like and if you are banned simply start editing under a false name and you'll be able to carry on as if nothing has happened, retaining your editing priveleges? Terrific. Britmax (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not retain privileges, you get blocked. That doesn't mean we should intentionally revert constructive edits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Screw that. Banned is banned, what is unclear about that? That means that any more effort the banned editor puts in here is WASTED EFFORT. It's not a game to see what gets kept and what gets taken out. It's a ban, plain and simple. If someone wants to revert every edit of a banned editor, more power to them. And it's fine to not revert complicated changes too, if you think there's a risk of damage to the previous versions. But there's no problam at all with someone reverting all the edits, the whole point of banning is that the community has gotten tired of having to evaluate the banned person's edits. Got that? When we ban someone it means we're not going to evaluate their edits for quality, we are going to revert them. Franamax (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Screw that. Positive edits are positive edits, what is unclear about that? If an edit has been determined to be clearly positive then don't remove it. It's not rocket science. I wouldn't be against reverting borderline cases since the fact of the ban means AGF is no longer applied. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Editors get banned when we decide that the effort of evaluating their edits is not worth it because the helpful proportion is too low. There is no requirement any more to evaluate the edits, we ban them so we won't have to keep doing that! If you want to chase around after banned sockpuppeteers on your own time and find edits of theirs to revert back in and take responsibility for because you "determined to be clearly positive", go for it. (and watch how quickly you get taken advantage of I bet) There is no such obligation on anyone else. Franamax (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference between what you are stating and the current situation is that someone has already determined at least some of these edits to be positive. The question is, should the good be removed with the bad. I say no. If it hadn't already been determined that there were some constructive edits then I don't care if a bit of collateral damage occurs in the revert. That being said, any argument that states that a good edit should be reverted solely because it was from a banned user is illogical if it has already been determined to be good. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Two-part answer. First, there is no disembodied "someone" here, there is the OP who asked for advice and your response characterized one of their options as "ridiculous", "blatant vandalism" and "disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point" - but no admin has opined here at the adminstrator's noticeboard so far that they would be willing to block someone for reverting edits of a banned user; second, yes there is some logic in the reversion argument. I wouldn't advise anyone to choose one (blanket revert) over the other (evaluate & keep good) and I have done it both ways in the past, but the rationale for reverting all edits is to convince the banned person that their efforts are futile unless they will comply with the editing requirements at this website, or they can simply leave and get on with their real life. The underpinning is the whole notion of crowdsourcing: if it was a good edit, it will get made again anyway sometime in the future by someone completely different, sometime before the deadline. The edit is not dependent on the editor. Franamax (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There are only very few, very specific instances in which banned editors edits are reverted en masse, regardless of how useful they are. This does not seem to be one of these cases. --Conti|✉ 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's about the encyclopedia - does this benefit the encyclopedia? Removing good, sourced content doesn't do that. People are not being rewarded by having their text in the project, as it isn't their text. Secretlondon (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with 69.228.171.139 and would say that depends on how difficult it is to ascertain whether an edit is helpful or not. Per WP:BAN, if we remove some good edits together with the bad ones, that's collateral damage, and "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert", but we need not revert edits we consider an obvious improvement. Huon (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a simply logical thought process: If I see a productive edit by a banned user, I could follow the rules to the letter and revert. And then immediately revert myself again, claiming responsibility for those edits. Or I might not revert the edits in the first place and save myself some time. --Conti|✉ 17:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RyanVesey, Huon, Conti, etc. If the a contribution is clearly positive, there's no reason to revert it. As an analogy: If a high school student was suspended/expelled for constantly vandalizing the school and he came back later to pick up trash and clean the place, the administration would likely tell him he had to leave because he is not supposed to be there, but they wouldn't dump the trash back out onto the floor that he had picked up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I was going to use a similar (but more extreme) analogy. Frankly, if constructive edits were reverted I and I knew about them, I would restore them. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So what makes those edits any more constructive than the edits you could already be making on your own in the same amount of time it will take you to evaluate and restore them? Why wouldn't you be trying to work with the editor to get their ban lifted instead? Where's your offer of mentorship? Or are they only interesting while they're banned? Franamax (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't state it, but in restoring them I would become responsible for the edits at which point they are no longer those of the banned editor. I wouldn't spend an enormous amount of time reviewing, I am talking about clearly constructive edits here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion here but if the edits were positive we shouldn't delete them IMO. We do have to review them for their merits but once we see what the edit was and have determined it positive we should move on. Especially if other edits were done to the article after that which means you would need to eliminate all those as well. Kumioko (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It really depends on the case I think. I just gone through a batch myself and reverted/deleted most but left those that where clearly poitive and outside the area of usual disruption. Saying that, the rule exists so that we can have a quick cleanup operation. No-one should be forced to spend time on any of these edits so expect good edits to go and conversly if you are in cleanup mode someone will come back at you complaining or if they got sense reverting you and taking responsiblilty for the edit. Agathoclea (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The trash analogy does have some merit. However, after glancing at the very sizable sock investigation archive, it appears that what is needed is help IRL rather than mentoring on Wikipedia. "Constructive" edits from a habitually unconstructive participant may still be part of an ulterior agenda. Taroaldo (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(not really responding to anyone in particular) It should be pointed out that this user was, in a way, banned for dubiously positive edits. More specifically, they work only within surnames, largely Jewish or Middle Eastern last names, and create disambig pages, move around existing ones and tag list pages with stub tags. While sometimes they're helpful, they usually end up making an enormous mess of badly tagged articles, unnecessary disambiguations and unneeded redirects. This editor was banned not for those edits specifically, but for blindly reverting anyone who tried to fix it and discuss it with them - and then, later on, extensive socking to get around blocks placed on them because of this. Since this editor does work in a very predictable area, and usually in very predictable ways, I wonder if there's a way an edit filter or bot could be set up to catch them before they become a problem, or at the very least notify an available admin of the situation for further investigation (to avoid false positives). The original account back in 2006 had 20,000 edits, most of which were problematic: the newer ones have managed nearly 100 or so each, and it's obnoxious to clean up afterwards for the above reasons - some of the edits are helpful and probably shouldn't be summarily removed. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am very familiar with SU, after cleaning up hundreds of his dab/surname pages at WP:SU five years ago. If he had learned what edits were okay and what weren't, I actually wouldn't mind his socking. BUT HE STILL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND what's wrong with parts of his edits. I've been cleaning up after his socks until I got too SU-bonked, and if people keep cleaning up his edits, he'll just continue socking and see that (at least some of) his edits stick. So personally, I think starting to revert everything by him may actually make him understand that it's futile to edit wikipedia, and spare us his mess. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my initial thought as well. Perhaps if it was made clear that none of their contributions were welcome, regardless of content, they would finally give up. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I (original blocking admin) have spent many days reverting and deleting edits Sheynhertz-Unbayg made through his many throwaway socks. It was rather depressing, and does not seem to have done much good. It does make him infuriated for a couple of days, but he returns a couple of months later to do the same as before.

Actually, for the specific situation of SU, I would welcome anything that gets him toward using a single account. I am unable to talk to him (I tried many times) but if anybody wants to try, ask me by e-mail and I will give you his e-mail address (which is essentially public). I don't mind unblocking his main account if that helps anything. —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting to the larger issue

While it may seem that in this particular case, perhaps some of the edits should stand, does it apply universally? Many of Wikipedia's most prolific sockpuppeteers were banned not for negative contributions but for battleground-like behaviors, POV-pushing, off-wiki harassment and unworkable tendentiousness. Taroaldo raises a good point above: though individual edits aren't necessarily a problem, they might be part of a larger push to either disrupt Wikipedia internally or mold it to fit their particular point of view. You have to balance this potential problem with what others have said above; it's also bad form to "throw cleaned-up trash back into the hallway," as it were. Good faith should probably be extended even to banned users, albeit on a very limited basis (they were banned, after all). It's quite a dilemma. How do you know when to decide one way versus the other? It's likely not something that can be decided universally. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really had this opportunity (so to speak) to confront from this issue, but in my opinion -- whatever that's worth! -- I can see both sides. When someone is banned, we're essentailly saying that we refuse to deal with them any more and spend effort evaluating each and everything they do. The presumption of good faith does seem to be shackled somewhat to speak. But the thing is, let's say that you happened to find good content in an article, and you notice that it is good content before you realize it's from a banned user. I don't think that there's anything in policy that says that you MUST revert that, or even that someone should. I mean, what if the content is on a Biography of a Living Person, and the banned user removed defamatory material from a page? Should we put the defamatory material back and remove it again> That seems silly! I also think that anyone passionate enough to create 250 accounts here will take up too much time to chase around like this, to ensure that not a single edit they make survives no matter what it is. DrPhen (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is at least one banned editor (can't remember which one) that ArbCom explicitly ruled must be reverted on site in all cases. It's a rare true example of an exception that proves the rule. But otherwise, I'd agree that it depends on why the editor is banned. Of course, if the editor was banned for consistently making copyright violations or inserting false information, the nuke every edit they make. If the editor was banned simply for being an ass I don't feel compelled to revert. But if someone does take it upon themselves to revert a banned editor, anyone who reinstates that edit takes responsibility for it in my opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

resp DrPhen-- If someone creates 250 accounts, I would not characterize it as "passionate". It's more like "obsessive" or "manipulative". Taroaldo (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True, perhaps I was understating things just a tad, eh? My concern, though, is that what if an editor (not necessarily a whackyjob like the guy with 250 accounts!) who is banned for something less severe or horrific comes back and, say, removes a copyright infringing material from a page or removes libel from a biography? Would it really be a good policy to reinsert copyright infringmenet or re-add potentially dangerous libel to a page just because it was a banned user? I think in cases like that it would be better to leave changes like that, just for that limited case, alone just to avoid inadvertently being destructive. DrPhen (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Use common sense when deciding to delete each and every edit of a banned editor (the "good" edits) just because the policy says you can. If one of those edits was them removing a copyvio: don't reinsert the copyvio in order to revert a banned editor. If they reverted a vandal, and the vandal hasn't reinserted the garbage: don't reinsert the vandalism because a banned editor made the edit. Doc talk 09:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In such a situation, apply WP:IAR and WP:COMMON. Blackmane (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think that an iron rule of "we must revert edits by banned users" would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. No doubt we should revert, but there will be cases where the user makes some genuinely good & productive edits amongst all the bad stuff; if we can be sure that it's good then removing it would be counterproductive. If the problems are obviously bad then get rid of them; if there's a risk of problems that are not immediately obvious (plagiarism, subtly distorting what sources say, &c) then obviously it's best to get rid of those edits too. Otherwise, can't we use some common sense? bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• The point is that Wikipedia should be generally returned to the state as if the banned editor had not been there. Reinstating obvious vandalism or BLP violations would generally be worse than leaving the banned editor's edits intact, but otherwise, they need to go. Having editors carefully review the banned editor's contributions and champion them as worthy of retention actually provides an incentive to the banned editor to stick around: gathering all that attention and then having people indicate that the contributions are so valuable that they need to be preserved despite policy is precisely the kind of attention these people crave.—Kww(talk) 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• The socks used to evade the bans are often not discovered until well after the fact. Some have accumulated a great many edits with the socks, over a great many articles, in the interim. Once they are identified, someone has to go through their edits. And not every single edit is always 100% "bad" from every single banned editor. This is where the "banned means banned/DENY" and "common sense/IAR" are at loggerheads. Reverting the edits that are productive in hindsight? Nothing in the policy says that every edit of a banned editor (once discovered) must be reverted. It's all on you as an editor when determining whether or not the wholesale reversion was the best decision. Good luck! Doc talk 09:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I probably have a different perspective on this from the other commentators here. A few years back, I was banned for a year, and rightly so. I didn't listen to the advice offered by more experienced editors and found myself in conflict with an admin who was exhibiting some appalling behaviour of his own. I felt aggrieved that this chap has making my life miserable, so I began playing with him, knowing that he had an enormous watch list and was easily rattled. I'd whip up a new sock, camouflage it so it didn't look redlined on history pages, and begin making positive efforts. It wasn't difficult back in those days, Wikipedia was absolutely full of unsourced crap, poor writing, typos, lousy grammar and so on. I'd just hit "Random Article" and look through until I found something that needed fixing, and fix it. Once I had a string of such edits - all good, positive edits - I'd ease into articles I knew that my grumpy opponent would have on his watch list. He kept every article he'd ever touched on his watch list, so I'd just look at his contributions, go back a year or so, and touch something up. I hit gold at one point when I found a bunch of edits he'd obviously made when drunk or stoned or something - they were just rubbish. Anyway, I'd fix up whatever mistakes I could find, and sit back, watching him carefully, as I chewed through his watch list, happily tidying up minor errors and organising things into lists and so on. At some point, he would notice what I was doing, and he'd go feral, raising alerts on noticeboards, calling me all sorts of names, and running around undoing all the good edits I'd done, which would raise angry interventions from all the other editors who were watching the same articles and would get upset that this chap was inserting errors and putting typos into articles and such. Oh, it was grand fun. Poor bloke couldn't help himself, he had to revert every edit of a banned user, no matter how good it was, and I made dam' sure that all my edits were good. Heaven help any newbie editor that came along and made good edits on "his" articles - they were immediately identified as my socks and arbitrarily banned! He used to make blocks on my IP address, and I'd just disconnect and get a new IP, and he'd make range blocks, and I'd find a new IP and he'd get to the stage where he was blocking half of Australian's major telco's IP addresses. I had ADSL and dial-up modem, a few different accounts, hooked up to a couple of computers side by side - I could never be blocked for more than a minute or two.

Eventually, I realised that this was a foolish sort of pleasure, and that tormenting the fellow who was tormenting me just made both of us unhappy. I could feel the tension in my own body, and it was obvious the other guy was feeling the same way. So I quit and immediately felt much better within myself. I had a pair of socks I'd crafted up and hadn't burnt, so I just kept using those to make productive efforts while I waited out my year of banning. I privately let a couple of senior admins know what I was doing, and they never interfered. I just kept my head down and kept editing.

My point, and I do have one, is that saying "banned is banned" and mindlessly reverting all edits by a banned editor might be exactly what that editor wants, because it's entertaining to prod someone to watch them jump. --Pete (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Which articles were G5ed?

Elektrik Shoos, can you please provide a list of the articles that you G5ed? If some of them are actually good content articles, and I presume at least a few of them are, then I would like to take responsibility for them and remove the G5 tag, per Wikipedia:BAN#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors. Silverseren^C 07:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I use Twinkle's logging feature, so all CSD and PROD tags I place are logged. You can see the list at User:Elektrik Shoos/CSD log. All of the G5'd pages can be found under June of this year. They are all surname articles or redirects. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

However, all of them have already been deleted save one, which was the first one. (I self-reverted immediately afterwards after I looked at the history and noticed a large history of edits by others as well. G5 requires no substantial edits by others. I thoroughly checked the history for every page tagged afterwards.) elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That would clearly violate Wikipedia:BAN#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors, Silver seren, and I would block you if I discovered you habitually removing G5 requests. If your purpose is specifically to prevent the edit's of a banned or blocked editor from being removed, you don't have an independent reason for making the edits in the first place. You would be proxying.—Kww(talk) 20:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It has commonly been upheld that any user is allowed to take responsibility for an article made by a banned user and stop it from being deleted. My independent reason is not wanting to have positive material be deleted. Silverseren^C 20:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's for any editor with an independent motivation. If you are systematically looking at G5s and removing them, your goal is to prevent edits made by banned editors from being removed. That's proxying. Proxying is a blockable offense. The purpose of this exemption is to allow people that normally edit articles to include changes that they may well have made on their own given time. This isn't what you are proposing doing.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel like you don't know what proxying means ("A person authorized to act for another; an agent or substitute.") Even the BAN page says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." I'm not doing this at the direction of anyone and can definitely confirm that the changes are verifiable (or I wouldn't want to keep them), and my independent reason is wanting to keep constructive material, as should be the motivation for all of us. Silverseren^C 20:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what proxying means, and by making an edit that you would never have made yourself solely because a banned editor had made it, you are proxying, albeit indirectly. Your reason is not independent. Such an activity would be disruptive. Your personal disdain for our policies as regard banned editors is not a reason to search out edits that they have made in order to preserve them—Kww(talk) 20:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The statement is in reference to making an edit on behalf of the banned editor. I myself have checked a portion of the edits and have reverted those that were incorrect or unconstructive and have endorsed a number of constructive edits as can be seen here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a history of stating that our policies regarding banned editors are the "stupidest" and "dumbest" policies on Wikipedia? I'm not arguing that edits can never be preserved. I'm not arguing that an editor can't encounter a reversion scenario and undo it. I am arguing that an editor that has a history of loudly and vehemently opposing all reversions based on an editor being banned or blocked doesn't qualify.—Kww(talk) 21:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not have such history; however, regardless of Silverseren's opinion of our policies regarding banned editors, he should have just as much of an ability to encounter a poor reversion and undo it as anyone else. That being said, if he has a history of being disruptive in this area (I haven't a clue if he has or not) an official decision could be made to state that he could not undo those edits. But until then, he should have the same ability in that area as you or me. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

He's referring to the fact that I have a history of pointing out that removing constructive information and articles because they were made by banned editors is stupid and not helpful to building an encyclopedia. I haven't been disruptive about it however, there's only two articles I can remember that I have restored. Kww is just one of those on the opposite side of the opinion pool on this matter and has, if i'm remembering correctly, threatened to block me before in regards to this same topic, again when I haven't even done anything. Silverseren^C 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's usually considered polite to issue a warning when you see an editor contemplating behaviour that would result in them being blocked. Our blocking policies are intended to discourage blocked and banned editors from continuing to attempt to contribute, and any effort to systematically subvert those policies would be disruptive.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Electrik Shoos, I see that you added the tag and then reverted yourself for Hannachi, therefore taking responsibility for it. Why did you do that for that one and not the others? Were any of the other disambiguation pages fully formed like that one, that you can remember? Silverseren^C 20:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I did. As explained above, it was the first one I tagged and I hadn't looked at the history. I assumed it was a page SU had created and tagged it as such. But immediately afterwards, I realized it was not a page they had made, and had been extensively edited by other people (which is well outside the range of criteria G5). So I self-reverted because I knew the tag was invalid and didn't want to further waste anyone's time. I was sure to check the history of every page thereafter. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

K. Were any of the other disambiguation pages as fully formed as the Hannachi one is? Silverseren^C 22:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, all of the disambig pages had two or three names on them at most, and a lot of red links. A few others were redirects from alternate spellings of surnames, but the pages they redirected to didn't actually list anyone who used those spellings, which renders those redirects rather useless. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if there wasn't anything actually useful in the pages, then it's fine, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for responding to my concerns. Silverseren^C 22:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem. My biggest concern here is that we're cleaning up after the mess this user consistently makes in a way that doesn't end up harming ourselves in the process, and hope that eventually SU will eventually get the point and stop. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed unban and unblock of User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg

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

---

Since we are now going to allow all of User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg's edits and that he will continue to evade his ban to make good contributions, there is no sense in continuing to impose a ban on him. At this time, I propose that Sheynhertz-Unbayg be unbanned and unblocked and free to do whatever he wants. --MuZemike 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how unbanning Sheynhertz-Unbayg due to some positive edits solves the reasons they were banned in the first place: blind reverting of other people's changes for their edits, extensive socking (over 250 accounts!), and an absolute refusal to discuss problematic edits with other people. If Sheynhertz-Unbayg presents themselves to an admin and agrees to change these habits, I'd support an unban. Otherwise I think we're recreating a problem that was already solved years ago. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Comment on proposal

This is not such a bad idea. If we can't enforce the ban, actually officially allowing edits and communicating with SU is probably the only thing we can do. I don't volunteer for communicating, though. —Kusma (t·c) 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We can do what we have been doing and enforce the ban by blocking. I have more than half of his ranges blocked. I didn't block his other ranges yet because he hasn't appeared on them. But when I did block all his ranges he was quiet for months. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Banned is banned. To allow a banned editor to edit is to turn the whole banning process into a farce, and to spit in the face of the community. The difficulty of keeping a banned editor away is not a valid reason for rolling back the ban. I, too, find MuZemike's occasional pointy suggestions annoying and disrespectful to his fellow Wikipedians, and ask that he please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if we made it clear to editors that make special efforts to rescue the edits of banned editors that their activities are disruptive? Forgive my attempted mind-reading, but I suspect what causes MuZemike to get so irritated is not the technical difficulties of enforcing blockes, it's having the blocks undermined by editors that insist on championing the edits of banned editors.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that many editors do not see the necessity for WP:DENY, and do not accept that restoring reverted edits should be harder than clicking "undo". Suppose user X is banned and they make some reasonable edits which are reverted, and user Y does not agree with the revert. What Y should do is to wait, then rework the material. It's easy to revert simple vandalism, but it is immensely difficult and frustrating for those (like MuZemike) who do the vital work involved in repelling the long-term pests, and a quick restoration of work by a banned user is telling those in the front line that their efforts are not respected. DENY works very well both to discourage pests when their work is removed, and to encourage them when it is restored. Restoring edits by long-term abusers guarantees they will remain active, and arguing over whether to restore such edits doubles their pleasure. Bear in mind that many banned users can occasionally edit well, but if left unchecked they will return to their abusive behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we are in violent agreement.—Kww(talk) 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If that's what's behind MuZemike's actions, then he should say that. Open a dialogue with the editors involved, or, if that hasn't been productive, bring their behavior to the noticeboards, but stop the very pointy suggestions that we should unban banned editors for no good reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unprotect my userpage

I asked a few hours ago for my userpage to be unprotected. Is it too much to ask for this to happen soon? I do appreciate that admins are far too busy to be expected to use admin tools, but still... DuncanHill (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done by ItsZippy. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly removing valid, referenced, verifiably correct information from Denver without explanation

Hello.

Yes, I was the one who placed the information in the article in the first place (but had a different IP address at the time), however, the information provided was a valid, verifiably correct, cited information. The editor removed it here without explanation (first time). I had then undone the edit as removal of valid information. The editor then comes back to remove it again without explanation (IP was different but in close range). I will not revert again due to my own personal policy on edit warring, but had come here to report this.

No edit summaries, especially refusal to provide edit summaries are a warning sign that the editor has an agenda. Interestingly, in the past, another IP editor had removed the information, I had reverted, asking for explanation, and the editor had reinstated the removal. Nyttend (talk · contribs) had then reinstated my addition, agreeing with me that it is valid information, (see this diff and the next diff, and also the relevant discussion (section: In regards to Denver).

All 3 IP addresses trace back to, guess where, Denver! See geolocation of 76.25.232.219, 75.71.148.86 and 97.118.173.171. Talk about having an agenda! I had heard before that the city had gone out of their way to keep the mile-high designation (see permalink, section: 5278 feet?). Who knows if those are people from the city trying to hide that information! I could only imagine what the agendas are for people who blatantly refuse to provide edit summaries!

As upsetting as it is to have my legitimate contributions destroyed without explanation, I do not at all mind constructive criticism from other editors and removals with explanations. I am an avid fan of constructive criticism, but I am not a fan at all of destructive criticism and those who wish to destroy the legitimate work of others or myself. See also sequence of events during previous incident and last 50 edits from the time of this post, and notice that it appears that IP addresses in close range to the one involved in the recent incident had their edits reverted.

Please provide, with the best of your administrative discretion, advice or action. I will also notify Nyttend due to his/her involvement in the past incident, who may be able to provide assistance, as we're having a repeat of the same incident. Thank you. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I may be confused, but I don't see where that edit is sourced. "Verifiable" is not the same thing as "verified". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The cited source confirms the information is correct. The GNIS and national elevation data can be accessed through the NWS at http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?CityName=Denver&state=CO&site=BOU&textField1=39.768&textField2=-104.873&e=1&mp=0. The elevation data map will read 5278 feet. In fact their updated version reads 5205 feet. If anybody has any insights as to resources which you can access the GNIS and National Elevation Dataset through, please let us know. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC), last modified 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

AE

I know this isn't the first time I've asked this (it's the second time, actually), but we really, really, need some fresh voices there now. We always do, but there are a couple open cases that no one who's already commented on really wants to close. I don't expect anyone to make this a habit (although I'd certainly welcome the help), but could we at least get a few good admins to look over there? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

good admins Well, that lets me out. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There are those who would argue about whether I'm a good admin, but I don't seem to generate too many complaints. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Every time I venture over there I run away screaming. This time was no exception. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I sympathize, Blade, but since I am not an admin.... Taroaldo (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)