Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243

WP:RFPP

WP:RFPP needs a little care from the wielders of the mop, AKA admins. There are now 26 open requests. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's now somewhat under control with 8 requests pending; it could use some clerking though. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Back upto 20 now, we really do need more admin eyes on RFPP given there's a backlog there every few days. tutterMouse (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy.

2) Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement.

3) The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Regarding the indef block of User:Paul Bedson

I noticed that the user conduct RfC about the mentioned user was closed; based on the nature of his edits, I think that a block was appropriate and that the closing admin's rationale is completely correct. Having participated in an AfD involving Paul Bedson, I feel that, though his contributions have not had an entirely positive effect on the encyclopedia, he has the potential to use article-writing skills in a more positive way. I was wondering if such a hefty block is necessary; perhaps if he's gone for a year or so, he'll find better forums for his fringe ideas and add appropriate content to Wikipedia. As persistent as he's been, I think a reduced block would lessen the chance of potential IP or sock activity; as mentioned above, I think it would lead to more positive contributions later. dci | TALK 21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment -- Paul clearly does have enough writing skills to be able to add useful material if he wishes to, and second chances are always worth considering. However, based on the conduct described in the RfC/U, I think the indef block is appropriate. His behaviour is long-term, persistent, disruptive and extremely time-consuming for other editors. I would rather not see this weakened at all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

His unblock request states "I am quite willing to change, have never been resistant to it, take all the advice suggested and edit according to guidance." This just isn't the case as you can see at the RfC/U. Those of us who have been engaging with this editor for some time haven't seen him change. I have seen him agree to my advice but he hasn't followed it, for whatever reason. In fact if anything he's worse, looking at the recent AfDs and article talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Alas, it seems his recent comments on his user talk confirm your rationales. My only request would be this - if he shows himself, at some point in time, genuinely willing to reform his activities, could reducing the block be considered? dci | TALK 22:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how he could show that. I do note that his unblock request now reads "This block is for no good reason and demonstrates a systemic anti-European, anti-British and anti-Lebanese racism sadly inherrent within Wikipedia. I am quite willing to change, if there was anything required to change and have never been resistant to it, take all the advice suggested and edit according to guidance." He's added the racist attack and "if there was anything required to change". He is still offering to confine himself to translation but he's been criticized for using a source in a language he doesn't understand, so... Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just declined his appeal - didn't see this thread, sorry. His claim that blocking him is anti-European, anti-British and anti-Lebanese suggest he's not gaining WP:CLUE at much speed but folks are welcome to counsel him as to how he might make a successful return to editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All right. I suppose there's no point now in arguing over whether he ought to return anytime soon, but I'd be happy to provide advice to him in the case it's ever brought up. dci | TALK 22:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic trolling by a sock. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 06:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following derives from a discussion at WP:AN/I. It is only loosely related to that which is above. dci | TALK 02:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I didn't notice that. No one welcomed him in 4 years!! @Ian.thomson: I will block anyone who tries to commit vandalism. First warnings, then block--Rrodic (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC) You're not an admin, and you responded on the wrong page. I'm over at WP:ANI, this is WP:AN. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Just to clarify, that's a now blocked sock not related to Bedson but taking Bedson articles to AfD - the no welcome message post was about someone else. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparent threat from Bedson

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 few minutes ago on his talk page he wrote "No reconsideration? If that is your final judgement, with no discussion, no negotiation. Then you leave me no choice, you will need the time and expense to employ more than that moron Agricolae, who doesn't even have a grasp of basic English, yet along know the sources of history of correct king lists, to stop me fighting this hate-mongering, Wikipedia:WikiBullying goon-squad. You will need telecomminications professionals, like me." This looks like a threat to use telecommunications skills against Wikipedia - I don't know what he means, anything from socking to something more aggressive, but I'd think that would require computer skills which aren't the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Telecommunications always sounds like a euphemism for either telemarketing or answering phones, but a threat's a threat, no matter how subtle. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What a shame. I had a proud career in telecommunications, and, to this day, there are many sections of the world where all voice communications pass through pieces of equipment I helped design. As for the threat, though, I never worry about people that can't spell a specialty they proudly proclaim to have.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In this edit Paul linked the phrase "telecommunications professionals" to CheckUser. So that's a clear signal that he intends to create sockpuppets (which is what I thought he meant even before the link). Is it time to remove his talk page access? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's linked to CU, so I'm guessing he's planning to sock. The conversation isn't productive, it's just going off on attacking tangents, so I'll remove tp access if there aren't any objections or someone beats me to it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, most socks return to edit the same articles. Bedson is an article creator, so he will be trying to create obscure articles which makes him harder to detect. Note that he is probably reading this conversation. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 21 December 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.

Proposal to extend Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting semi-protection

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.

---

The semi-protection is due to expire 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC). Drmies did the original protection, I added a week, so I think it needs to be reviewed here and a consensus formed well before it expires. It is my opinion that we should extend the current semi-protection for another two weeks, which would take it until a few days after the Christmas holiday school break. I don't see this as preemptive, as we already know what the problem is and it has already proven to be a target for abuse, even with the semi-protection. I would also be very open minded to an indef time, as we really do not know exactly how long it will be until the risk is at an acceptable level. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Two week minimum or indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Protect until sometime in Jan 2013 - the kids will be back at school, and the Xmas holidays will be over meaning more admins will be about to deal with any issues . Once it's unprotected there should be a zero-tolerance approach with a look to indeffing i.e. we re-protect as soon as any vandalism starts happening. GiantSnowman 14:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Two weeks agreed. I would be quite happy with a month. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Two Weeks, fine with a month, not fine with indef.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support at least two more weeks. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support one month so we don't have to come back here in two weeks. Oppose indef.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Treat as any other page. I don't see any reason why we should prot by committee in this case. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support a minimum of two weeks due to holiday period. I have a feeling based on past events like this that a flurry of investigation information will hit the week after next and with the holiday, we'll want the protection then. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Two weeks seems reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• A month is OK as well, if that's the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support anywhere from 2-4 weeks. I do think the amount of attention this will get will evolve quite a bit, I don't see a case for indef at this time. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose not Support keeping this protected for at least another month. I find it tragic that a page about a tragedy is abused like this.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 22:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are you saying you support the proposal? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• It certainly seems like they are supporting the proposal. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I thought so too ... but starting it with "Oppose" made so little sense... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• If I recall correctly, cyberpower does the same thing at RfAs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I do. But they are more intended to be humorous. There is nothing humorous about this so I have changed it to say support.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support one month Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support one month – EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support one month — Ched :  ?  00:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support one month - I agree with Dennis, we don't know when it is safe to un-semi. Two weeks seems too short, and indef is infinitely too long. Literally. I think a month is a good time. Vacation^nine 03:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss semi-protection

• To Nathan: The reason I brought it up here is because it has been protected twice, and there is the potential for contention involved. While I could just jump in and extend the protection unilaterally, and likely wouldn't get a lot of flack over it, I think it is appropriate that I ask the advice of my fellow editors. This isn't just another article, due to the attention it has attracted. Over 1 million views in the first three days, and 4000 edits. It is an exception to the rules on many levels, and I'm asking here because I respect the opinions of others, not because I think policy requires it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think asking was prudent. It's just my opinion that it doesn't need to be treated any differently than other highly visible articles. A view which appears to be in the minority. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• The difference between "rolling two-week period" and "indefinite" should be academic. TBH we'll definitely still be talking about this matter in two weeks, so it's not as if anyone is going to forget to review the protection status. I'd rather just indef it with periodic review. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 21 December 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.

Block review

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.

---

The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the merits of the block itself, not the merits of a hypothetical unblock request; a consensus endorsing the block should not be construed as a community unblock-decline.

I invite review of my indefinite block of Varlaam (talk · contribs), a longtime abusive and combative editor with a block log to match and no indication of having learned anything about collaborative editing. I've given an explanation on the editor's talk page with diffs pertaining to one particular conflict, on List of World War I films. Should there be a consensus that the indefinite block is too long, I have no objection to it being shortened. Incidentally, the user has a history of (undisguised) socking while blocked; time will tell whether that will continue also. Thank you for your attention. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no concern, indefinite is not infinite or forever. The user has called positive sources vandalism and repeatedly made personal attacks on something that in no way shape or form constituted vandalism. Removing additions of sources and material while pushing a POV is unacceptable. He was warned on his talk page to. So it does seem fair, the intention to continue edit warring seems clear enough to me. (Non admin comment)ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Looks reasonable enough to me. Note though that I don't want to turn it into a defacto ban, and so normal appeal methods, including a regular unblock via template request should still be available at the discretion of a reviewing admin. Monty₈₄₅ 16:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sure--I don't mean for this note here to read like a ban request or anything like that. I just think it's proper for an indef block of a longtime editor (without adjectives this time) to not be kept out of the public eye. I see now that my "consensus that the..." phrasing can suggest "ban", but that was not my intention. Of course any individual admin is welcome to disagree with me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you don't mind, Doc, I've boldly put up a hatnote to this effect, just so no one in the future can argue about what the meaning of this thread's outcome (whatever it should be) was. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• (Just to keep things organized... if someone wants to move for a ban proposal, it'd probably be better to do that as a sub-thread, regardless.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment from the editor at the wrong end of Varlaam in this case. I would be extremely disappointed to be the cause of this editor becoming indefinitely blocked. A similar situation occurred at Hedd Wyn itself, the subject Varlaam disputes. Varlaam chose not to comment at the talk page at all, but (what appears to be) due to other editor involvement Varlaam hasn't edited against consensus since June 2012. From my experience of this editor, if enough editors watch a page he disputes and actively defend its consensus, Varlaam appears to accept the inevitable. Would any admins be willing to keep an eye on that page? It may be as effective as a block and allow a productive editor to continue adding good content. Daicaregos (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Mind you, I didn't block Varlaam for just edit warring on this article: it's the pattern of edits and behavior, including the abuse and the lack of (civil) engagement on talk pages during edit disputes. The edit warring alone warrants a block (certainly considering the editor's history); it's the combination of that and other things that I believe warrant an indef block. Going through the editor's history and following a couple of the links on their talk page provides sufficient indication--the editor just doesn't seem to be able to collaborate, and any dispute seems to be followed by abuse. If Varlaam stops acting like this on one article (like Hedd Wynn (film), it just seems to shift to another. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse As an editor who has been on the receiving end of this type of behavior and worse from Varlaam more than once, to the point I was too afraid to report it, this is long past due. I find what underlies Varlaam's conduct is the belief he is always right coupled with a fixation on numbers of edits and the labels that accrue to him as a result (thus is constant reference to himself as a Master Editor and a top IMDB editor) rather than any betterment of the project. One needs only look at his user page and talk page to see the pattern. It's not a disposition that leads to collaborative editing, but rather a collector's mindset: get the most edits any way necessary. He has no respect for the project except as a vehicle for his collecting, and sees any editor who reverts him an obstacle to accruing edits. Until that mindset changes, the battleground mentality that accompanies it won't change either. --Drmargi (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Nothing at all controversial about this block. This is a prime example of the general failure of time-limited blocks for sociopathic conduct to have a corrective effect. The user should not be unblocked without firm consensus to do so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse V's pattern has not changed. He receives a block, he socks during the block, the block expires and he edits calmly for a few days/weeks and then returns to contentious behavior. The current unblock request shows that he has no understanding about how his behavior towards the community is the problem. MarnetteD | Talk 21:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Looks like a solid block. Maybe we could convince him to let someone archive his talk page though..... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  On his talk page he says "I have never deleted anything from my talk page or archived it, because that is dishonest". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse. I've had a look over Varlaam's editing history, and the ownership, personal attacks, and edit-warring have been going on for years. Many people have tried to explain the problem, but his unblock request shows that not a single thing has gotten through to him. I've had a go, as an uninvolved observer, at explaining the problems. Maybe coming from someone who had never heard of him before today and has never even read the articles in question it might make a difference. But I'd say there would need to be a massive change in attitude for him to be unblocked, and I really don't see that as very likely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 21 December 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:JaviAdamou

User blocked in commons and [here]--Musamies (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So? We do not block based on being blocked on another site, even another WMF site. Is there some reason the user should be blocked here? Please present diffs demonstrating why or drop it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he did insert an obvious copyvio image (File:GEORGIA.jpg) here on his en-wp page draft, after using one of their socks to upload it on Commons, so some disruption has been happening here too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have found them to be socking here and have given them a time out as well as blocking the socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible quick closes related to Sandy Hook

Howdy--can one of you pop over to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 21 to see if the discussion on the redirect to a father can be speedily closed? There is broad consensus that this is a BLP violation and all this is happening right now. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here's another, with an opportunity for SNOW: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Leigh Soto. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Both  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

[1], [2]. -- KTC (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed [3] [4] [5] by Bwilkins. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and I cannot say I'm impressed by the the wikilawyering and tone of the discussion at User_talk:Ahnoneemoos (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There's a right way and a wrong way to challenge a close you don't agree with. Anon chose the wrong way, big time. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• And for the record I do of course realize that was an unusual close. This is an unusual circumstance. Th feeling so far has been to take a cautious, conservative approach to it until time grants us some perspective on these events. That (and WP:SNOW) is the reason for the speedy closes, protections, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD table

For any admins who work at AfD regularly, you might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Fake 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.

---

I believe User:Ali Limonadi's user page as a WP:FAKEARTICLE example. I have informed him about my notice here. I recommend speedy deleting that page. 156.111.133.110 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Then nominate it as one please. If you can find your way here, you can figure out the ins and outs of WP:AfD. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But IP editors can't create pages for deletion pages. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sure you can--it requires only one extra step. Or you find an editor, any registered editor, and ask them there rather than add to this already-long board. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 23 December 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.

move needed

in some strange move-war, somebody pointed moved a page to Montenegríns (note í) and somehow messed up Montenegrins, the English spelling. Needs to be moved back by admin. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. And move-protected for a fortnight. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I also warned two of the editors involved. I wondered at first whether Montenegrins (ethnic group) wouldn't have been the more correct page to move back to, having been the status quo immediately prior to the move war, but on closer inspection I agree Montenegrins has had the longer stable history and the prior move (in October) to the "ethnic group" title was also likely contentious, so this is probably the best solution for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

request admin help to close improper AFD

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.

---

An uninvolved administrator's help is needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scheduled Castes to fully close this improper AFD. Basically, an editor who just "lost" an AFD on the same article, as part of a 2 article AFD, has immediatelyt re-opened a 2nd AFD, choosing to reinterpret the closing decision as not addressing the second article. If the editor disputes the close, there is a process for that, Deletion Review, which could reopen the 2-article AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes. It is wrong to start a new AFD from scratch, seemingly ignoring well-considered judgments of participating editors.

I started to close the new AFD, with note of "close in process" in version as of now but I see from guidelines on AFD closures that I should not complete it (as I am involved).

This is about a list-article that I created, and that editor Orlady is seeking to delete. I don't know how to get Orlady to stop following and harassing me, e.g. by opening AFDs about articles that are clearly wikipedia-notable. This is perhaps a continuation of recent ANI, also involving editors Orlady and Sitush. Anyhow, could someone please fully close the new AFD. --doncram 02:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I started the new AfD discussion (which is a proposal to userfy, not delete) after consulting with the administrator who closed the other two-article AfD, but only tagged the other article. That consultation confirmed that the closing administrator had, like the discussants, overlooked the inclusion of this article in the other AfD, and resulted in the suggestion that it would be sensible to open a new AfD for just this article. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Request to Userfy process. It is an AFD. There are no new arguments to make about the list-article. If you dispute the close as you believe the closing administrator did not adequately consider the opinions of participants, the process is Deletion Review. There is no value to be added for Wikipedia to having this re-opened. Editor Orlady fully knows this is a valid Wikipedia list-article topic. Just stop, please.

And, Season's Greetings everyone! --doncram 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop. It. Now. When the closing administrator says "I would re-AFD it", Orlady is not disputing the close improperly, as you say at the AFD. Let me remind you that WP:WIAPA says that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are a personal attack, and you've presented no evidence that "Editor Orlady fully knows this is a valid Wikipedia list-article topic" and is thus doing this in bad faith. What will induce you to stop violating WP:WIAPA? Nyttend (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What lack of evidence? It is obviously a fully valid Wikipedia list-article topic, and is a fully sourced article. Orlady's AFD proposal is weird, claiming not to be an AFD but rather a request to formally userfy it, why? Because Orlady recognizes it is a valid topic. Orlady just doesn't like the list-article as it is now (for no reason clear to me, and for reasons that were rejected by others in the closed AFD).

The AFD was closed with The result was keep. Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted. I don't care what Orlady and the closing administrator discuss elsewhere, it was closed. If that conversation elsewhere is evidence that the closing admin did not pay proper attention to the contents of the AFD, then take it to Deletion Review. You don't get to trample over all procedures and keep on hammering forever and forever.

I repeat I would like for an administrator to close the new AFD and leave it to Orlady to open a Deletion Review. I think the close was valid, but it would be another option to reopen the old AFD. --doncram 07:25, 25 December 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.

Request to review arbitration enforcement appeal

I blocked User:Mor2 for a violation of WP:1RR at Operation Pillar of Defense. Mor2's last unblock request was declined because they didn't follow WP:AEBLOCK. Mor2 e-mailed me and asked me to help him because he was having trouble with the procedure, specifically {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. So, I did it for him and then posted a comment on their talk page explaining what I did.

I'm not sure how we expect the average user to comply with the procedure at AEBLOCK. God knows it wasn't easy for me, and I'm not an average user. I finally edited the template and copied and pasted the text onto Mor2's talk page. Some of the "parameters" worked fine; others didn't. I monkeyed with it as best I could so at least it looked reasonable if not exactly right.

Request. Please make sure I did it right. I know it's Christmas Day for many, but any help would be appreciated.

(Given the unusual circumstances, it made no sense to me to notify Mor2 of this discussion. If someone thinks I should, I will, or anyone who wishes to can do so.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The format is correct, the template needs to be copied to AE for discussion, which I have just done.

That particular template is a big pain, but since AE appeals are relatively infrequent nobody bothered to revamp it. One big problem with using substituted templates is that certain typos can confuse the parser enough to stop the substitution altogether, and it is hard to figure out exactly what messed up the parser. (The template for AE requests used to be similarly painful, until it was revamped a while ago by yours truly to use a preloaded form. Now it's significantly less painful, though people still mess up sometimes).

I'm actually working on a Javascript-based AE filing system, modeled on the one used at DRN, that should allow appeals to be filed more easily. With any luck I'll have it done before the New Year. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the template automatically get copied, or did you agree that Mor2 had done enough to warrant a community review ("You are not entitled to a community review of your block. The reviewing administrator may decline to initiate a community discussion if you do not prepare a convincing appeal before making your unblock request.")? If it was a decision on your part, I'm not questioning it, just trying to understand how the hell this works. :-) I'm assuming I fill in my part at AE, not on Mor2's talk page - right? Last but not least, thank you very much for helping out here and for working on a script to make the process more straightforward. I'll wait for your answers to my questions before completing my section.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, usually it gets copied unless it is patently frivolous, and yes, you fill out your statement at AE. (I actually spent the past 30 minutes or so working on my comment at the AE appeal, and it's still not finished, but as it turns out, I don't think the appeal is groundless at all.) T. Canens (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I've been working on my statement also during this time. I saw your comment here before I posted it, so I did read your statement, but I decided to post mine without any changes as it at least reflects my thinking, even if others, like you, disagree. Besides, it won't bother me if there's a consensus for lifting the block (obviously it can't be "struck" as requested). Moreover, if there is such a consensus, I need to take the reasoning into account in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Would any admin with a little extra time please bookmark the MP:ERRORs page? This page is for reporting errors directly on the Main Page. As all the MP pieces are generally locked to admins only, the Errors page pretty much requires an admin bit in order for someone to be able to respond usefully.

Over Thanksgiving we had an issue of monitoring of the Errors page being spotty, at best, and an issue languished there overlong. With the coming holidays, now is the time to get additional eyes on the page, especially eyes that are more likely to be around during the holidays. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a recurring problem, with no solution other than to beg more admins to watchlist this page, I've been thinking if there's any better one. And here's what occurred to me: A week ago or so, I had to get my talk page semi-protected; as one is advised to do, I created a sub-page for IP/new user comments. But sometimes I didn't notice comments, since I wasn't getting a "New messages" banner. So I convinced Legoktm (talk · contribs) to get Legobot to leave a little note and TopIcon at the top of my talk page whenever someone commented at the IP comments page. (Including a hidden-text note that prevents it from leaving the message again until it's removed.) Now, MP/E has 376 active watchers; AN has 1735. So why not get a bot to leave a message here saying something like There is one or more outstanding error report at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Please do not remove this message until the report has been responded to, and the error has been corrected, if necessary. (Please reply before removing this message, so as not to trigger it again unnecessarily.)<!-- (Some hidden-text note to the bot) -->, whenever someone edits MP/E. Where that message would go on this page, and in what form, would obviously have to be decided, but what do people think of the general idea? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems like an intelligent idea. Alternatively, would it be possible to transclude a list of errors to AN or ANI, with a quick easy way to determine if an issue is resolved included in the transclusion? Just tossing a related idea. --Nouniquenames 05:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea of transclusion, but IMHO it does not solve the problem. Familiarity breeds complacence. How many people actually look through the huge list of items at the top of WP/AN these days. I don't. If it was always transcluded, I would think that it would be just another thing to routinely scroll past. OTOH, figuring out some way to have a bot realize that MP:ERRORs has not been handled is a reasonable amount of time would be nice. I know we already have a bot sticking notices if AN/V is backlogged and if C:CSD is backlogged. Hmmmmmmmmm.... - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The issue with transclusion is that it doesn't pop up on any watchlists (unless people have the subpage itself watchlisted). And while on busy days a bot update could get drowned out in normal AN business, it's slow days that we should be worried about the most, anyways. I'm not super-knowledgeable about programming, but it seems to me that short of setting up a complicated filter, there'd be no real way to program a bot to know if an issue's already been dealt with; so I think the solution is to have it leave a generally non-intrusive message at first (e.g. a little box at the top of the page, between RfC/U and the archives), and start a thread if no one's removed that message within half an hour or so. Shall I go get someone who knows how to actually program this to draw up a proposal? Oh, and incidentally, would there be any reason not to add MP/E to {{Noticeboard links}}? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC complicated articles

Admin Nathan Johnson closed this proposal on largely procedural grounds of me 'switching' the question midway through the RFC. I requested a review from him on his talk page, where Osiris also shared the same question as me. To this Nathan said that he was busy but open to anyone reviewing his decision on the issue.

Can an experienced admin please review this closure and check if it was correct or not? Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say that within that discussion, there is consensus for the idea that link to Simple English should appear at the top of the language list. There are however several problems or potential problems. First, as mentioned by the closer, a significant part of the original RFC was withdrawn midway through. That in and of itself is not fatal to a consensus forming, but it is problematic in that it transformed a more general discussion into a specific discussion on moving the link to the top of the list. If the change is made, it will impact how a great many articles are displayed, and it is likely that additional voices of objection will appear one the change is made. In light of the topic change, and the somewhat limited participation in the RFC, objectors could argue that the RFC was not prominent enough to justify such a change. That said, there was little or no specific objection to the change in the RFC, which certainly weighs in favor of implementation. Implementation is a problem to, if we accept there is general consensus for the change, there is clearly not consensus for a specific method of implementation. There is already a sound objection at WP:BOTR to using a bot to implement the change, and there was very limited discussion of that in the main RFC. To avoid controversy, it may be better to hold a 2nd RFC that includes specific proposals on how the change could be implemented, making sure its clearly labeled, and probably included in WP:CENT. This would also give those who missed the first RFC, or didn't understand what it proposed, a second chance to object to the general idea. Monty (Public) (talk) (main account) 14:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Procedural question, now resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just curious: why is this a subsection of the arbitration enforcement request? It looks like a minor error, but I don't want to make it a separate section if there's a good reason for its current location. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Looks like it was mistakenly added as a subsection when it was moved over from WP:AN/RFC. Osiris (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to start that discussion up here, but I don't think it should be done by bots either. Getting the software to automatically sort it at the top would be excellent if it's possible, though the most important step in getting it done would be to alert the Wikidata developers. We don't even really know whether it would be possible under that scheme, so it might be a moot point as to whether it needs to be done; can it be done is the most pressing question. Interwiki bots won't be around here much longer after all. Osiris (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision page inconsistency

On revision and log pages you see (latest | earliest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) for toggling between revision stratum. The arbitrary choice to go with latest and earliest instead of oldest and newest goes against the principle of least astonishment. If there are any admins bold enough to right this UX wrong, MediaWiki:Histfirst MediaWiki:Histlast are the respective pages to do so.

It would be nice if this change were done to all the wikis. I filed a bug report on this at Bugzilla eons ago and nothing was done about it. It's a darn shame since this should be so straightforward to fix. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed your links. What bug was it? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I suppose everyone will jump on my back now, but at least I linked to WP:AN in the edit summary. Thanks for pointing this out. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

By eons I meant six months ago. Bug 29444. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant "a year and six months ago" unless my eyes are going bad...

I've tagged your bug with the easy keyword, as it's just a minor change to a language file. If I get a chance, I'll change it and commit it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 10:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Political AfD

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.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Ziabari (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know if anyone else is watching this page, but it continues to be a political/ethnic battleground. I've removed some of the most egregious material, which is saying quite a bit for an AfD, but the mud-slinging continues. More eyes would be helpful. And more !votes from experienced editors would also be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise closed the discussion as delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 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.

Van Rensselaer

An apparent stalker

Seems that there is someone stalking nearly every edit I make especially on Van Rensselaer, this page should have never been a disambiguation page (which makes all the sense in the world--who would actually be confused between a Philip and a Stephen for example? Which by the way each have disambiguation pages for a good reason). Now let me start by saying "yes, there was a LOT of noise on that page, much of it put up by ME and seeing THAT gone is NOT was is getting to me. [[Van Rensselaer and Rensselaer are obvioulsly more of a "who's who" of van Rensselaers and really does not disambiguate much, so it makes little sense designating it as a disambiguation page.

When running the dragnet through the page at least one editor sees fit to totally delete information simply because it either looks unpleasant or does not fit perfectly as that editor sees it. The minor one was about a character on Archie Bunker's Place whose name was Van Ranseleer I added it to the list as 'Van Rensselaer'. Sure I get it, My bad a minor error that could and SHOULD have been fixed instead of being arbitrarily deleted without any regard to the editors effort in addition to ZERO attempt to using Talk:Van Rensselaer. I can live with that one I made a reasonable fix. Here is where the neglect is obvious in removing useful information simply because it does not look right.... 'Don't fix it, get rid of it all together' (single quotes do not reflect ANY direct Quote!) 2 perfectly reasonable entries that were arbitrarily disregarded and deleted for no apparent reason other than appearance on a page that should neither be titled nor tagged as a disambiguation page.

• Van Rensselaer Hall or Sarah Drexel Van Rensselaer Dormitory for Women.

And this statement of fact (that I agree should NOT be on a disambiguation page, But this is not one nor is Rensselaer

−

• Rensselaer Westerlo (1776–1851), U.S. Representative (NY)

+ (Undid revision 529553687 by JGVR (talk) this is the pattern)

• Rensselaer Westerlo (1776–1851), U.S. Congressman from New York

The above edit demonstrates the above mentioned stalking These people have a title (regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with their views) Their PROPER title is Representative NOT the misogynistic 'CongressMAN' Where is the "PATTERN"??? JGVR (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Here is the deleted statement I mentioned and forgot to add here:

• Note: When researching as a surname, the vast majority of 'van Rensselaer' surnames are properly spelled with a space. Consider Vanrensselaer a possible anomaly, such as limited space for typeset or in cases where it is known to be 'correctly' spelled without the space, the person may have had their name legally changed and omitted it as one of many possibilities.

JGVR (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is related to the "Copy&paste/pagemove chaos" section currently at WP:ANI. JGVR was introducing a lot of problematic formatting into these pages and ended up getting blocked when he kept going. Looks to me as if Kraxler, whose edit summaries JGVR quotes, is simply enforcing WP:MOSDAB in these pages. Note that there's nothing wrong with "congressman"; we can be informal here, and there's no requirement that we be politically correct. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like there is agreement that the edit I made had no need to be undone and as for the continuation of copy/paste AFTER the ban?? no such thing happened. To see there seems to be no contention with the rest of my concerns as of yet I would still like opinions on wy thought of those 2 pages having the disambiguation tag removed for obvious reasons.

PS I thought people were supposed to be notified when their name is discussed here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGVR (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, they are. Why didn't you do it? I ended up having to notify Kraxler, since you didn't. You brought up the thread in the first place, so I had no reason to notify you. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As Kraxler notes, you keep moving the furniture around. There's no stalking, you just need to discuss your changes with Kraxler nicely, and sort it out, assuming good faith all the way. Use the talkpages of the relevant articles. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User JGVR arrived on Wikipedia 5 days ago, and has no basic understanding what Wikipedia is, and how it works, and managed to be blocked right away. He has not read any guidelines, and although he has been asked to discuss issues on the talk pages, he does not. Most of what he writes is incomprehensible, his not being a native speaker of English contributing to the chaos. So, I'm a bit wary to debate with somebody who does not understand what I'm saying. I'm not stalking anybody; I'm a member of the WikiProject New York, and have created about 1,000 New York related articles, so I have a few Van Rensselaer pages on my watchlist. Anyway, Rensselaer and Van Rensselaer are ordinary dab pages, like thousands of others. And by the way, the Rensselaer Westerlo revert was because of the abbreviation "(NY)" which should be avoided on dab pages. Kraxler (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

someone seems well prepared pre-concieved notions of my membership (Registration time: 04:02, 11 October 2010), but ILL prepared to address the concerns mentioned above. I thought this was a place to hold serious conversattions about real concerns which have gone totally un-addressed by those who felt they were mentioned.JGVR (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand where you're going here; could you rephrase what you're writing? Basically, you've been adding content to disambiguation pages that doesn't belong on disambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously it was a totally needed thing after I changed a near bigraphical page title from Jeremias Van Rensselaer (sixth patroon of Rensselaerswyk) to Jeremias van Rensselaer (sixth patroon) Wiki Just wouldn't be as dependable without changing it to Jeremias Van Rensselaer (sixth patroon) is it that imperative to incorrectly capitalze this surname??JGVR (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

REALLY? How does this article Hendrick K. Van Rensselaer lack citations?

JGVR (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Obviously someone could not read the 2nd paragraph or use ctrl+f to search "Hen" to find the mentioned name cited in the article to which THIS CARELESS notation was made on article update. "‎(I expect this to be moved around a bit more, since none of the sources so far mentioned in the article actually state his name...)"

So, now that the stalker allegations have been dealt with, can the style and content issues be taken to the article talk pages? Tiderolls 23:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that the Stalker issue has NOT been dealt with, I would like the vindictive editing to stop

• (removed irrelevant image, and redundant cats, needs to be moved back, this is NOT the Dutch wikipedia). Image replaced See page 35 and others

JGVR (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand, JGVR, possibly due to my attempt at being diplomatic. Allow me to try again; the stalker allegation has been dealt with. Your next move is to the article talk pages. You should also acquaint yourself with the applicable MOS and talk page guidelines before you start. That last part is a suggestion, but the first part is not. Tiderolls 23:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Are snide comments needed in edit notes?

My only real problem is the continuation of the snide comments in the edit notes. and deleting things without bothering to read the references. the things that are actual mistakes I have no problem with corrections being made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiliaen_van_Rensselaer_(colonel)&action=history

16:20, 24 December 2012‎ Kxxxxxr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,360 bytes) (-183)‎ . . (→‎External links: wow, this user is quite a bit misguided....) (undo) Is totally uncalled for...JGVR (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you learned a bit about how Wikipedia works, other editors won't have to revert your edits and point out how misguided your edits are. In fact, if you don't stop posting on the noticeboards in lieu of getting a clue, I'd suggest that a block might be in order for disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

where were the disruptive posts?? JGVR (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You're soaking in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Continual abuse of editing

I need an unbiased administrator to please take a look at Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname) History and the related talk page and please do something about Kraxler who I just cent notice to about posting this here.

• He has a problem with the correct spelling of a surname and has wasted many article titles simply on his view of name spellings regardless nearly every article I created with the correct lower case "v" is now a redirect page. It is plainly obvious his edits are in some way vindictive by virtue of the fact I informed him of the very same pattern in names such as von Richtofen (which for some reason he chooses not to "correct" them to conform to his view.
• Although I clearly mentioned to him in the talk page and provided him links, he is determined to delete "red links" which are allowed and encouraged for potential articles. plenty of explanation and links to my reasoning in the talk went ignored.

JGVR (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Please notice it is not a DAB page but a list of surnames which he conveniently deleted from the top but forgot the tag on the bottom JGVR (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unbiased administrator, please see the unresolved "An apparent stalker" section higher up on this page, as well as the "Copy&paste/pagemove chaos" section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779. JGVR was blocked over this issue a few days ago and has received comments from lots of people encouraging him to heed layout conventions and WP:RM more consistently. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was blocked copy/pasting articles back to articlenames they had no need to be moved from in the first place

So in a way it IS a continuation of vindictive editing as previously stated AFTER the ban JGVR (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:STICK is all that needs to be said, I believe. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree HE absolutely should!!...JGVR (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

JGVR, you've been mucking around in front of a lot of administrators on two noticeboards for about a week, now. You've been warned not to go around hysterically characterizing things as "vindictive", "stalking", "sabotage", and "abuse", and yet you're still doing it. Stop behaving so foolishly. Try to behave like a rational adult. People are not vindictive or stalkers. What they are are simply trying to cope with bogus copy and paste "moves", and disagreeing with you on two points. Those two points appear to be (a) that Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, contrary to your attempts to write zero-information articles about everyone merely name-checked in the single family tree that perhaps-not-at-all-coincidentally happens to match your user name, and (b) whether van Rensselaer (surname) is an anthropnymy article or a disambiguation article. On the latter, it is a reasonable contention, given the existence of the van Rensselaer disambiguation article, that it is indeed an anthroponymy article. But my goodness you don't appear to be able to make it in a sensible, coherent, and mature fashion. Stop this nonsense, please. Because the end result, I predict right now, will otherwise be that a lot of sick and tired people will just decide to topic ban you from anything whatsoever to do with van Rensselaers, you'll be unable to stay away from the family tree vanity regardless, and you'll end up with your account's editing privileges pulled permanently. It has happened to other editors, unable to focus on anything but their own family trees, several times over the years. It will happen to you. Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is my HUGE list of all the tons of articles that are being imagined i've created

Pages created by JGVR:

• Van_Rensselaer_(surname)
• Henry_van_Rensselaer_(disambiguation)
• Van_Rensselaer's_Regiment
• Johannes_Pieterse_Van_Brugh
• Nicholas_Van_Rensselaer_(military_figure)
• Philip_S._Van_Rensselaer
• Philip_van_Rensselaer
• Philip_Van_Rensselaer_(author) (to create a DAB)
• Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer
• Kiliaen_van_Rensselaer_(colonel)
• Philip_Kiliaen_van_Rensselaer
• Nightcall_(disambiguation)

Hardly an entire family tree oh and can someone tell me which ones would have no value whatsoever?

JGVR (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Uncle, would there be precedent to simply ban JGVR from starting any AN threads on this or any related matter (including the conduct of users with whom he's in dispute), to encourage him to settle the issue through the normal channels? That way he can go back to editing this topic, and if he gets blocked for edit warring, or topic-banned for disruption, later on, so be it, but at least we're giving him a chance to keep on editing his favorite topic. I haven't been following the content dispute itself, but I'm just thinking in terms of leaving the door as open as possible for constructive contributions. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I would tend to agree with you... for the moment. However JGVR needs to actually discuss with an open mind and courteously. His latest addition to Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname) indicates a fair degree of "I didn't hear that" and a continuation of characterising edits with which he disagrees (despite his rather poor knowledge of various style and naming conventions here) as "done out of spite". His continual blanking of his own talk page [6] makes it virtually impossible for other editors to carry out a meaningful or helpful dialogue with him. I hope he changes his tack soon, because I suspect he's heading down a road to a topic ban or even block. Voceditenore (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • JGVR just inserted at Van Rensselaer (surname) again a red link to an article which was deleted for lack of notability with this edit summary : "(Vandalism repaired and reported to - info-en-v@wikimedia.org)". I agree with Voceditenore that this is a case of "I didn't hear that". Kraxler (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • And here you are talking about disambiguations right below a big notice that says "anthroponymy" in boldface, and here you are waving around a style manual guideline that explicitly says that it doesn't apply to anthroponymy articles. So there's a bit of "I didn't read that." going on here, too. Go and read Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#surname and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Given names or surnames. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • ? This is a disambiguation page with a lot of material that doesn't belong on it. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
          • No, it wasn't. See the style manual guidelines mentioned above. It's actually stated at least four times, three in boldface, that anthroponymy articles aren't disambiguation articles. See also the notice in the first revision of the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Uncle G, your link points to a project page with has a boldfaced list of notable Spencers. So, do you think a red link to an article which has been deleted for lack of notability should be added there?

            Besides, the content dispute should be resolved (if possible) at the talk page of the pertinent article. I posted here an edit summary by JGVR which calls a bona fide clean-up edit "vandalism" after he received several warnings to cease attacks and disruptive editing. Should something be done about it? Kraxler (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

            • Something has been done about it, both above and on JGVR's user talk page. Pay attention. We're also doing something about you, since you're the other half of the problem where a MOS-waver who hasn't read the style manual that xe is waving meets a family tree vanity editor. We're pointing you to the MOS that you're waving around, and the notice at the top of the article's talk page, explicitly telling you about anthroponymy articles — an article that JGVR was actually encouraged to create, moreover.

              And don't mischaracterize this edit of yours as simply removing a redlink. You did much more than that in that edit, as we can all see, waving around the MOS in the edit summary even though it explicitly said otherwise and also arguing on the talk page about disambiguation articles immediately below where there was a big banner saying "anthropnymy" in boldface. And to top it off, you also accused JGVR of trolling. You don't exactly come off as whiter than white, so don't attempt to play the "But xe called me a vandal!" card. As I said, a MOS-waver has met a family tree vanity editor, and we have to deal with both of you, because you've both contributed to this situation.

              To address a final piece of the mess that the two of you combined have brought about: Philip P van Rensselaer was speedily deleted because JGVR (the creator and sole content editor) blanked it, and Martha van Rensselaer was speedily deleted because JGVR just nicked someone else's writing wholesale. Neither page was actually deleted for notability reasons, and neither speedy deletion precludes the future existence of an article.

              Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

              • Thanks for the clarification, Uncle G.
              • Philip P van Rensselaer was proposed for deletion for lack of notability, and the proposal was endorsed by two other users before JGVR blanked the page.
              • I have edited Wikipedia for 6 years now, and have routinely removed red links from dab and other pages which remained there after the articles had been deleted, speedily or otherwise. Nobody ever even noticed, nobody ever complained. I'm at a loss to understand how anybody could make a fuss about this non-issue. Kraxler (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hey, could someone please take a look at WP:Copyright Problems and see if they can find a way to reduce the number of templates on the page? The page has reached the template limit and therefore, in addition to causing the page to load ridiculously slowly, the functions of some templates are not being performed. For example, the footer section currently reads "Wikipedia's current date is CURRENTMONTHNAME CURRENTDAY, CURRENTYEAR. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/CURRENTYEAR CURRENTMONTHNAME CURRENTDAY. Images should be handled by speedy deletion, possibly unfree files or Wikipedia:Non-free content review.[[Category:Wikipedia deletion|PAGENAME]]". I'd do it myself, but I thought a WP:CP regular would have a better idea of what can be removed or streamlined. Cheers, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 04:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, one quick and dirty fix would be to subst the notation templates that use {{SCV}}. There a great many of them transcluded in the SCV boxes. Perhaps a bot substing just the SCV uses that are older then a week would be enough? Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't {{SCV}} supposed to be substituted anyway? — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just clear the backlog and the problem will solve itself. MER-C 13:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MER-C. The main problem is the size of the backlog. If we fix that, the template overflow will go away.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Did my part; I got rid of a couple days today. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend :). If there's still a massive backlog when I get back from holidays in a couple of days, I'll try to lend a hand. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 01:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot? Babel AutoCreate

Resolved

 – These aren't the droids you're looking for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Babel AutoCreate seems to be an unauthorized bot since it says it automatically creates categories under certain situations. It's created a number of deleted categories and I can't figure out who the bot owner is. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Its user page was created by SPQRobin, try them? — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left a notice. Ryan Vesey 18:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As the userpage makes it clear, the user in question is not a bot, but rather a token username used by a MediaWiki extension to perform certain edits. As the deployment of MediaWiki extensions pertains to developers (and only in portion it is of concerns to the community), unless there are issues, don't worry about it. If there are issues, report issues to bugzilla. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is part of the extension or not, the thing is making botlike edits. I don't know if it is doing anything outside of that (the portion that doesn't concern the community), but I fail to see why it should not go through a BRFA like any other automated editing bot would. Ryan Vesey 18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, we don't require on wiki approval of extensions or other software updates, which this essentially is. Maybe we should, but I don't think this falls within the remit of BRFA. Monty₈₄₅ 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

<bag hat="on">That is correct. It is outside of the scope of BRFA and the bot policy.</bag>. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As Snowolf says, it is indeed a fake account used by the software (implemented similarly to e.g. User:MediaWiki default). The Babel extension was enabled Wikimedia-wide, and categories were defined for a number of wikis, on which the AutoCreate account creates categories automatically. On some wikis the account was misunderstood as being a bot, which it isn't, so I created the user page to try to explain what it is. I also had done some coding in the Babel extension to fix some of the bugs that appeared, but the extension is still not perfect. SPQRobin (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb

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

The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Jerusalem

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

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Errant AfD

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 it be possible for an admin to pop over to this AfD real quick and determine if it should be speedy/snow kept? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Essien Etok. My apologies for the inturruption. Thank you all and be well. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Has 3 keeps, no real reason to rush it at this point is there? This time of year, participation can be slow, so I would be hesitant to snow keep on 3 keeps. Of course, another admin may see it differently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• There's nothing errant about the AfD. As far as I can tell, the claims of celebrity and a connection with Michael Jackson are extremely unreliable and are based on gossip, hearsay and the subject's own blog. Shritwod (talk) 00:55, 28 December 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:Featured picture candidates

We're a bit low on reviewers due to the holiday, and even with a five-day extension, we're still running rather behind. If anyone would like to participate, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria is the criteria featured pictures are evaluated against, and anyone may vote. You may want to review some of the pictures already promoted to get an idea of the quality we're looking for for certain image types. Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Username policy question

Can someone have a look at Vietnamesefreedomflag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I am not sure this is an outright username policy violation, but the username is clearly one intended to either promote a cause/soapbox with. Also likely to be a sock or bad hand account of an MMA editor so maybe a CU might want to have a look to. Mtking ^(edits) 07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The name itself isn't terrible and block worthy. The only thing I can suggest is to keep an eye on the account and see what goes on from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A Formal Report on Schappelle Corby

Let's not do this on two noticeboards at once. You all know where Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Schapelle Corby is. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Momoka Ariyasu (urgent!)

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.

---

Please do something quick. I'm the creator of the page Momoka Ariyasu, so I can't remove the speedy deletion notice. The page in on the top of DYK right now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I contested the CSD because the article makes a credible claim of notability; however do note that I doubt any admin would've CSD'ed that page as it currently stand despite the request. Salvidrim! 09:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left the tagger a note, he appears to have done similar with related articles. GiantSnowman 10:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I should have contested the deletion before writing here (just in case). I will contest other speedy deletions made by the same person now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(Other notices have been removed already by GiantSnowman.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not resolved - do we have potential Twinkle abuse here? GiantSnowman 10:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. He's still a relatively new editor. Nevertheless, I've warned (and trouted) him twice, but it appears he's willing to tag more. Despite the article making very evident claims to notability, he believes that the articles should be deleted because "they will be forgotten in 3-4 years," even though notability is not temporary. If he does it again, a block might be the only solution. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• It appears the user's understanding of CSD criteria is flawed. He needs to understand that being notable and making a claim of notability are two different things, and only the latter is covered by CSD. I'm willing to give some leeway here and would rather see this used as a teaching experience than see him sanctioned. Salvidrim! 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I tagged those articles because I believe those bands and singers are not notable, and that the articles are basically frivolous, fan-written hagiographies. It is not because they will be forgotten in three or four years (I believe I prefaced that comment with “besides,” which should make it painfully obvious that it is not my primary reason.) As to whether I’m a relatively new editor, perhaps you should check my background. IIRC, I made my first edit in 2005. Meanwhile, I will review csd to see whether I understand the criterion properly. If I do, and I decide these articles meet the criterion for deletion, I will continue to pursue their deletion in spite of your mobbing—which, given the tone of these messages—is what are least two of you are engaging in. Best regards, and have fun Jim_Lockhart (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is criticising the fact you want to get some articles you view as non-notable deleted; it is the fact you attempted to use CSD to do so when they are patently not eligible. Review WP:N (particularly WP:MUSICBIO) and then use WP:AFD if you wish to start a deletion discussion. GiantSnowman 10:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I feel compelled to reiterate my earlier explanation -- CSD A7 applies when the article makes no credible claim of notability. These articles obviously do. Whether or not such claims of notability are verifiable and correct is another matter that can usually be dealt with at AfD, if you truly believe that these articles do not pass the notability guidelines for inclusion. Salvidrim! 10:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And please don't tag something for deletion, whether speedy, prod, or through AFD, while the article is currently linked from the Main Page. KTC (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find something fundamentally wrong with the fact that editor Jim_Lockhart lives in Japan (since 1981, see his userpage) and wants to delete the pages. To do it, you need to be completely withdrawn from society (or hate the group). By the way, I find it very interesting that Momoiro Clover Z has surpassed AKB48 by the number of views in the Japanese Wikipedia. And AKB48 was the most viewed article back in December 2010 (not counting the main page and a list of pornographic film actresses.) See the December 2010 statistics and the latest statistics: Momoiro Clover Z, AKB48. (It's not related to notability. It's simply an interesting fact.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the criterion at CSD and see that I was wrong in using the Speedy Delete tool, so I rescind my posting of the request for speedy deletion. I also see that it is against convention to tag for a deletion an article that is linked to the Main Page, and apologize for that offense. I appreciate the points that Giant Snowman and Salvidrim have made and thank them for their patience.

That said, I do not appreciate the attacks on my person and attendant innuendo about what kind of person I am made by Moscow Connection. I will admit that Japanese pop culture—especially of the [Name your locality abbreviation]+48/54/69 ad nauseam type—is not exactly my forte, but perhaps it is because I’ve lived in Japan since 1981 that I want frivolous stuff like this deleted. It is, as Wikipedians used to say, unencyclopedic; how many hits a page gets on the Japanese Wikipedia is immaterial to the noteworthiness of the subject to English speakers. In any case, Moscow Connection’s tone and insinuations are offensive. I believe that sort of thing also violates several Wikipedia conventions, not least of which are the one about no personal attacks and the one about assuming good faith. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Moscow was quite correct in his tone. It may all have been just a simple mistake or misunderstanding, but he simply said something relevant. If a page is one of the most searched on that encyclopedia, it is very likely notable for other pedias too. A person from the same country might be expected to know more about the notablity than others.

All in all, There was no bad faith or personal attacks from his side. Just an observation. An interesting fact, as he put it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry. I didn't want to imply that you were actually "withdrawn from society" or that you actually "hate the group". I was just a way to put my amazement into words, to show that I thought there was no way to not know about them skyrocketing to the top right this moment. Sorry. I assure you, no personal attack was intended. I hope you re-read the sentence and see that the words "something fundamentally wrong" indicate that I was simply wondering how could that be possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Moscow Connection. If it wasn't intentional, then I apologize for over-reacting. But I disagree with TheOriginalSoni's assessment, so in future I recommend that you work to avoid expressions that could be construed as calling a person's integrity or motivations into question, or their degree of familiarity with a subject as broad and deep as Japan. As I've admitted, I'm not real familiar with popular youth culture at this point, because I'm not as exposed to it as I was, for example, when our children were living at home. If you were living here, you would probably be unfamiliar with numerous aspects of this society, too—like, say, which enka singers are popular or on their way out the door right now. This would be because you weren't focused on those areas, whereas your antennae for what's going on in youth culture would be very sensitive. In any case, best regards—and thank you very much for your kind words. :) Jim_Lockhart (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. When I'm re-reading what i wrote, I don't think you overreacted. It can be understood as being very impolite. (It looks terrible, so I better not re-read it again.) I understand 100% what you are saying. I know that I don't know much about Japan apart from idol groups. I recently met a group of people, none of who had heard about "Gangnam Style", and I wasn't amazed. Some people are interested in pop culture, some aren't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a note about "CSD A7 applies when the article makes no credible claim of notability": The bar for avoiding A7 is actually lower than that, it is "CSD A7 applies when the article makes no credible claim of importance", and a claim that stands up to Notability standards is not required. As it says at WP:CSD, "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• As that article stands, if it went to AfD I suspect it would probably be merged to the band - she doesn't appear to have much, if any, independent notability. That should've probably been picked up at WP:DYK. Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not to mention the poor English and lack of MOS. DYK really needs to look at more than just "interesting" facts.

• If they can get past the poor English on this one, let's just hope they don't click on the band article. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two reliable sources that discuss her in detail: [7], [8]. The latter is actually dedicated fully to the DYK fact, so it must be an indication of that the fact is important. She alreasy meets the basic notability criterion. There's also Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. At least one movie, Shirome, stars all Momoiro Clover members as main characters. They regularly rank in the top 10 of BIGLOBE polls, which indicates a cult following: [9]. --Moscow Connection (talk)

The band article is yet to be expanded (fivefold, to meet the DYK criterion). I'm planning to do it in a month or so. There are virtually countless sources, Natalie writes about the band virtually every day, Oricon every few days. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't read Japanese, but from the way the article reads it appears that those sources are about the band, but happen to mention facts about her. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the section Momoka Ariyasu#Image, after that Google Translate will work with this one: [10]. The other article is maybe just about an event, but still about her. There are also many interviews. For example, in this interview there are sections where they discuss each member individually. I didn't use them yet. I can't comment on the language because the article has been rewritten already after it appeared on the main page. It looked like that at the time: [11]. And it had been reviewed prior to that: [12]. If the article wasn't good enough, I can ask someone to review my DYK articles in the future. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There's also a straight-to-DVD movie called "ももドラ momo+dra" (you can search YouTube for a trailer), where all the Momoiro Clover Z members appear as the main characters. That makes it 2 movies at least, enough for Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. Anyway, they are big. The group also has its own TV shows, but it may not count towards their notability as individuals. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I read the article now and in its current version it misses some of the points that were there originally. For example, there's a sentence in the Image section that looks completely random, while it had a meaning before. I will fix it later, but not now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thing: Momoka is a member of Momoiro Clover Z and she was a member of another notable group, Power Age (see the Japanese Wikipedia article). That makes her notable as "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. She was also a member of a unit called Sisters Rabbit (sic!) (Sisters Rabbit in Japanese Wikipedia). The unit is most probably notable, it originally featured Namie Amuro. But Momoka was a second generation member, I couldn't find sources for that period. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:26, 28 December 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.

Review requested

Please see Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Mis-use_of_User_Page NE Ent 20:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

Hello. Anamasry contribute in Arabic Wikipedia (I leave study now), not good at only Arab (so use automatic translation by Google), but I want to take part in the English Wikipedia because it sister major and leader of our major, so I want to introduce my service to administratorsin the English Wikipedia: This is a list of the pages you've created in the Arabic Wikipedia, but some is not in the largest electronic scientific encyclopedia, I want create a project to translate the articles we present in Wikipedia and Arab non-existent in the English version --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You should put your ideas at the bottom of this page, not here. If you ever need help with Arabic to English translation, check out this coordinating page. dci | TALK 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Andybrevard and Badboyzshop

Can someone handle this to show the accounts are linked, and probably deactivate the old one? Badboyzshop (talk · contribs) has changed his name from Andybrevard (talk · contribs) to Badboyzshop, per details given at user talk:Badboyzshop diff.

-- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as he's not attempting to evade sanctions or scrutiny, I don't believe there's anything an admin could do, even if they wanted to. I'll advise Badboyzshop to throw up an {{Altuser}} on the old account and a {{User previous account}} on the new one.

If there's a concern that Badboyzshop is not the same person, you might want to ask him to confirm it through the old account, but otherwise I'd encourage you to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT, 70.24. Yes, Badboyzshop should have requested a name change, but as far as I know there's no rule against changing usernames "oldschool." — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I was operating under the impression that when you switch usernames, an admin was supposed to block your old account? -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is overlap in a way that means it is unlikely they are the same person. Very likely, they are working in tandem. As long as it isn't abusive, then it isn't meatpuppetry, although any time you see this kind of editing on a new article, it is worth monitoring. They both should not be voting at AFD for instance, since it is obvious they are two people but acting as one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, please? If it is two people, they've done a very good job making it look like one - even pretending to forget to change accounts, after I suggested to Badboyzshop that he use the old account for his updates to his old userspace, to verify that he's the one operating both. Either way, if Andybrevard doesn't edit any more, this shouldn't be an issue. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

70.24, you're allowed to request that your old account be blocked, but no, I don't believe there's any policy that old accounts should be blocked. It's good to declare them, so that no one can accuse you of trying to sock if the old one is compromised someday (indeed, this is what I've done with two somewhat less benevolent accounts I made once upon a time), but I think the general idea is that if you have reason to believe that an account will not be editing, you want to know if they start editing again (e.g. why we don't block users who've been confirmed dead). Furthermore, occasionally one does want to use a secondary account to test things out - for instance, I use FRC&AND (talk · contribs) to experiment with Pending Changes in the designated sandboxes, occasionally. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Reviewer permissions

I don't mean to be picky but I submitted my request to to be a reviewer 5 days ago here and I haven't got a accepted or denied and I was wondering how much longer is it going to take? I don't mean to be rude but is my nomination to be reviewed thoroughly or something otherwise I don't know why the long wait. I also noticed there is a backlog notice at the top. Hopefully things can get cleared up, cheers JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing having to do with you more than likely, it's just backlog. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've cleared the backlog a bit, and got up through your request. Seems PERM could use some more attention. Monty₈₄₅ 01:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you much , cheers JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by 124.188.33.97 (talk · contribs)

124.188.33.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalising Beijing–Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong_Kong_High-Speed_Railway persistently, claiming that the article is biased. The user has reverted changes at least five times (most likely more by the time this is posted) and threatens to do so until the article 'includes factual details'. Thanks 86.151.98.79 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User is also posting comments on my talk page, about the article being biased and they will continue to say its biased until something is done.--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA SPA's/Socks

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.

---

Looks like some new MMA SPA's (more likely socks) have turned up today :

• MMAFAN4LIFE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ILUVMMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Likely to be one of a handful of masters. ✍ Mtking ✉ 09:16, 29 December 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.

personal attack

Could someone look here and tell me if LlamaAL's edit comment about a recent barnstar given to me constitutes a personal attack? Thanks PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is undeserved because you have very few edits to MMA-related articles. And with substituted, I was referring to {{subst}}. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest you to read WP:WIAPA before taking someone to the AN or AN/I. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this is the sort of very mild, insignificant incident that is best dealt with by ignoring it. Who cares if somebody thinks you did not deserve a barnstar? Somebody else thinks you did, or they wouldn't have given it to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have seen someone blocked for referring to another persons improper edits of their page "vandalism". This seems to be in the same general area. While it may be mild it is still insulting to my efforts. I also feel that his comments were not in good faith PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

a) He fixed a problem on your talkpage b) you probably didn't deserve the barnstar, so he was right, c) he apologized on your talkpage for that edit-summary and you removed it, d) it wasn't a personal attack - it's not like he referred to someone by a specific disorder in their edit summary like someone I know. What else is there? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• User:PortlandOregon97217 already in top 3,000 active Wikipedians: I think the judgmental claim of "undeserving" can be considered an insult to an October newcomer (re wp:BITE) who has made over 232 article edits within 2 months (edit-count stats), which places User:PortlandOregon97217 in the top 3,000 active Wikipedians for November/December, by article-edits, among the now 600+ edits. Remember, about 9,500 editors average over 25 article-edits per month, but over 115 article-edits is rare. I think, perhaps, PortlandOregon97217 should be given another barnstar, for diligence, for maintaining a high level of activity especially during these 2 months when many editors must cope with holiday/travel plans, and we need extra help on Wikipedia. Well done. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• The edit summary in question clearly does not rise to the level of an actionable personal attack. Arguing about barnstars is a waste of everyone's time. Monty₈₄₅ 16:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The barnstar is incidental. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove the wikibreak javascript code from my user account

Hi,

I am user kazemita1 and would like the wikibreak removed from my account

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kazemita1#Sockpuppetting

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.59.250 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Try logging in now (ps: bypass your cache)(✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just curious — if you disable Javascript in your browser, will it be possible to log in anyway? Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally. Firefox+Noscript = no wikibreak enforcer. Rd232 ^talk 02:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Or simply any browser that allows disabling of javascript or doesn't support it. This issue came up at the time of the enwiki's blackout which was likewise accomplished with a mix of js and css. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Shinkansen

It is being suggested that I am vandalising an article on the front page of Wikipedia (the Chinese Shinkansen). I am not a vandal. I am simply seeking to have the article corrected for accuracy. It makes no mention of the source of the technology (clearly Japanese)

My name is Alan Erskine and my email address is <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.33.97 (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan. This is a content dispute and should be discussed at the article's talk page, so I've gone ahead and made a section for discussion here. Wikipedia follows a particular cycle of editing, in conformity with which, please comment there rather than continuing to make changes to the article (which has been PC-protected by King of Hearts (talk · contribs)). Λυδαcιτγ 07:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are not going about it the right way. Placing that bold face edit into the article, although you do not consider it as such, is not generally received as a constructive edit. Whether the rail line is, or isn't, based on Japanese technology is not up to Wikipedia, or more specifically the editors writing the article, to decide. If reliable sources write about the rail line being derived from Japanese technology then please by all means include it in to the article, but until such time your edits will be challenged as original research with no sourcing to back it up and other editors who challenge this material may remove it per WP:BRD. Please discuss, on the talk page, the inclusion of your edits into article once you have found reliable sources. Blackmane (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unhelpful interactions

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 would like you to ponder a ban of sorts--a ban preventing A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) from commenting on Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). I don't understand what AQFK's interest in MF is (certainly MF couldn't care less about AQFK), but what I see is edits like this one and this one--reopening a thread at ANI that they had nothing to do with at all. I'm sure others can more easily provide diffs from various ArbCom cases where AFQK brought charges against MF. I don't really want to go digging through AFQK's history; right now I'm interested in the principle of a ban that said something along the lines of "AFQK, thou shalt not bringest charges against MF in such and such forum, nor shalt thou comment on thine or others' talk pages about said MF". Something of the sort. Because I'm tired of seeing what I can only call a vendetta, unrelated to any conflict about a specific article (thus involving hounding as well), and I don't accept the rationale that they're doing it for the benefit of the project. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it would be simpler to ban Malleus from interacting with all the "fucking idiots" he encounters. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Support a ban on AQFK commenting on Malleus, unless required to do so by WP policy (or responding to any comment by Malleus mentioning AQFK, if any ever are made). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone calls another editor a "fucking idiot" and an "ignorant idiot", and the perceived solution is to have an interaction ban for anyone who points this out? The initial thread was closed, people should just let sleeping dogs lie. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I think sometimes we get so used to editors using the various disciplinary processes to advance their grudges that we forget that some people wish to use them as intended. Not that I'm saying AQFK's done that; in short, I agree with you that he's not helping the project by what he's doing, but I'm not totally sure that he doesn't think he is (though perhaps someone can find some diffs to say otherwise). My personal opinion is that the best way to respect AQFK's right to comment on proceedings, while at the same time reducing his ability to create drama, is to topic-ban AQFK from initiating any disciplinary procedures against Malleus. I'm not saying that I, personally, would or would not support such a ban, but, from my moderate familiarity with this case, and going off of what you're saying, Doc, I think that an appropriate wording might be A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from initiating any disciplinary procedures against Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), or from attempting to prolong any such procedures once another editor has marked them as concluded. Once again, I'm just speaking from an outlining perspective here, not from a support/oppose one. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus has stated he has retired so I see no real reason to do anything.©Geni 15:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

[13]. Or are you saying we should put any action on hold until it's clear it will have any practical effect? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a symptom of a wider problem, that whenever Malleus is mentioned it attracts a bunch of shit-stirrers with personal grudges and civility agendas, even when it has nothing to with them, or if it the involved parties have already moved on, or if it is some trivial comment that from anyone else wouldn't even be noticed - that includes some admins and some arbs. I honestly don't know what, if anything, can realistically be done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • • You are failing to acknowledge that whenever Malleus is mentioned, it's usually because he very rudely told somebody else off, quite possibly calling them names in the process (and he's the one that complains about childishness?). Whenever and wherever he is mentioned, it's probably going to draw a few editors who dislike him and a bunch more who will defend him at every turn, regardless of if his actions are defensible. I still have yet to see any of his supporters address whether or not what he said to this most recent editor is ok. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I consider this editor a master shit-stirrer, which is why I'm bringing it here. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they can't get their kicks elsewhere, and I think it is disruptive that they don't. In general though I share your pessimism. Thanks Boing, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, This thread seems to indicate that AQFK reopened the ANI discussion after it had been closed. That is not an accurate portrayal; Scottywong reopened the thread and AQFK posted the level III header shown above, after it was reopened. --My76Strat (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Let's recount the timeline of events to see what has happened:

1. Malleus refers to another editor as an ignorant idiot and a fucking idiot, presumably for the massive transgression of initiating a GA reassessment on an article that was previously edited by Malleus. An obvious case of childish name-calling, violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as Malleus has done so many times in the past.
2. An obvious sock reports the incident to ANI. Why he chose to report it as a sock is unknown, but perhaps it is because he anticipated the predictable backlash from Malleus' harem, who are apparently in hyper-sensitive mode now that Malleus is threatening to retire for the 79th time, as he seems to do every time he needs a little extra attention.
3. The discussion on ANI focuses exclusively on the sock, not the personal attacks, and the sock is soon blocked with talk page access removed, even before a checkuser has the time to confirm/deny. When a checkuser finally gets around to it, they find no relationship between the blocked user and any other user on the site. Yet, he remains blocked with talk page access removed.
4. The ANI thread is reopened by me (not AQFK) to examine the original complaint without regard to who posted it. It predictably attracts Malleus' supporters, who, instead of discussing the blatant personal attacks, focus on the fact that I mentioned that Malleus has been blocked many times in the past for civility, has an arbcom sanction at RfA for civility problems, and nearly got site-banned for civility problems last time he was at arbcom. They apparently took offense at the notion that someone believes Malleus has a history of civility problems.
5. The thread is closed again, 2 hours after I reopened it, with no substantive discussion on the personal attacks.
6. Drmies starts this thread in an attempt to get an interaction ban between AQFK and Malleus, and for what?! Because of a single comment by AQFK, rhetorically asking when it is acceptable to call someone a "fucking idiot"? I, for one, think it is a perfectly reasonable question; one that should actually be discussed without closing the thread after 5 minutes. And certainly nowhere near worthy of an interaction ban. There were no personal attacks in his comment, and his comment was perfectly civil and reasonable.

I'm tempted to continue starting threads on ANI about the incident until it actually gets discussed rationally for longer than 10 minutes. But, I already know what the response will be, and I honestly don't fucking care enough to put myself through the bullshit. The events in the timeline above are concerning to me. These events would never take place if the user involved wasn't Malleus. Malleus' supporters continually refer to complaints about Malleus' behavior as "lynching"; but then they respond by starting threads like this one (an obvious "lynching" of AQFK, who has done nothing wrong). Obviously, I oppose the proposed interaction ban, but I am very concerned about quite a bit more than that. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 16:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Ha, that's nice: you are very concerned, well, so am I, and your inflated rhetoric only confirms that. You know as well as I do that AQFK has no business trying to be the civility police by asking some innocent question. It can be an innocent question, of course, but not if it comes from this editor. No number of fucking bullshits will change that--you know he's out to get Malleus. There's a few more who are, and some of them have wisely laid low and stayed away--what I want is for AQFK to stay away. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Why don't you stay away from AQFK, and do something more constructive than thinking about ways to defend Malleus and attacking those who "are out to get Malleus" with your time here. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I think we would all be better off ignoring Malleus' bouts of moderate incivility and, if we are going to ignore them, I don't think it is reasonable to sanction the editors on the other side of the dispute who are acting no more disruptively then Malleus. Monty₈₄₅ 16:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As presented the whatever-this-is proposal does nothing to convince me that it is necessary. I don't have a stable enough internet connection at the moment to dredge through interaction history, but I'm not aware of any history that would make me think there's enough clashing between these two users to warrant this ban thingy. --Ks5stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 17:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this issue is long dead. --Rschen7754 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, this is definitely ax-grinding and should be closed. --Rschen7754 19:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scottywong and Monty845. Seriously, Malleus can be far more of a problem than AQFK, who's main crime appears to be attempting to draw attention to Malleus's misconduct. If you want to crack down on someone, crack down on Malleus. Besides, Malleus is still retired as far as I know, so why should this be necessary? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, having read through some of this page, I find that Malleus's behavior was once again bullying, abusive and condescending toward an editor with fairly little experience. This sort of trash has been allowed and even encouraged for a long time. Silencing the opposition to it is nothing other than censorship. Perhaps Cornellier didn't understand the GA criteria. Does that mean s/he should be treated like dirt? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment...it shouldn't be a surprise though that this website may very well have a few editors that are "@#$*&@#...idiots". In some very rare situations, it might not be such a bad thing to say it as it is. Generally speaking, in ones own usertalk, I think great latitude should be permitted for venting. I would really like to emphasize that for our administrators to ponder. I'm not saying that this would make it okay to threaten bodily harm or similar, but seeing anyone blocked or dragged to arbcom for comments thay make in a frustrated or disgusted state in their own usertalk worries me somewhat.--MONGO 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• MONGO, I couldn't agree more. BTW, thanks for fixing my poorly formatted notification. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note that neither the "ignorant idiot" nor the "fucking idiot" comments were made on Malleus' user talk page. ‑Scottywong| express _ 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think they were made on someone else's talk page weren't they? So the same principle applies. I do have to apologise though, as what I'd mean to type was "fucking dishonest idiot", but the "dishonest" bit seems to have been lost. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The same imaginary principle applies, perhaps. However, there is no provision within WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL which allows for exceptions based on the location of the uncivil comment or personal attack. You are free, of course, to start an RfC to add such an exception to the relevant policies. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 19:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - There might be less disruption if Drmies stayed away from AQFK. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pfff. That's BS and you know it. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Let it go. Malleus's supporters have for some time been more disruptive than Malleus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to think it's not BS. I think we need to start handing out interaction bans for people whose entire existence here seems to be devoted to defending one editor. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What hypocrisy, Scottywong! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that hypocrisy? What editor does Scotty defend? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, would you accept a two-way interaction ban with AQFK? You don't comment on him or his edits, he doesn't comment on you or your edits? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose criticising an editor for calling someone a "fucking idiot" is perfectly acceptable, let alone sanctionable. Hut 8.5 19:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• I would like to ask AQFK to not bring forth complaints about Malleus he is not a party to. While I don't have objections to third party complaints or efforts at litigation, in this specific case, no good can come if AQFK initiates another he is not directly involved in. I don't condone the use of any wiki space to call anyone a "@#$*&@#...idiot" or similar, but we need to apply less zeal, step outside the issue for a moment and get well educated on what the underlying issues are. I therefore oppose an interaction ban, but strongly advise AQFK to not participate in any further efforts at seeking sanctions against Malleus unless he is directly part of the dispute.--MONGO 19:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Close This proposal is, apparently, not being well received. Now, if we had some committee that dealt with intractable issues . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - AQFK is an unhelpful busybody who just needs to find something else to do and mind his own business. The community has made it rather clear by now that Malleus being generally right about a given topic outweighs any perceived incivility. We used to call people like AQFK "net cops" back in the Usenet days. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose As too broad and vague. The restriction should be to prevent him from raising concerns about Malleus as a third party. AQFK has caused a great deal of disruption to the community and Malleus by repeatedly trying to go after him as a third party, I noted this when AQFK filed the ArbCom case because one of the previous ArbCom filings this year was instigated by AQFK taking a frivolous complaint to Jimbo's page. He should definitely stay out of it unless he feels he has been treated uncivilly. Malleus is getting stressed for obvious reasons and when there are numerous members of the community, including Arbitrators, denigrating him repeatedly without provocation and people making frivolous complaints about his contributions it must be very hard for him to maintain his composure. If this restriction were changed to be a ban from making complaints about Malleus as a third party, I would support it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this nonsense and let's hope to see a little more maturity from Drmies in the future than this blatant attempt to silence anyone still daring to be critical of Malleus' frankly outrageous behaviour. Small wonder that the only people who still risk calling a spade a spade are socks now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I would be happy if AQFK voluntarily concluded that commenting on MF isn't helping, but a community one-sided band requires a lot more justification than has been presented.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:03, 29 December 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-Free Media Usage Warning

Good Evening,

I am Malikussaid, a newbie Wikipedia editor. Here, in my personal opinion, I felt that mechanisms of warning users of inappropriate edits is quite highly... (sorry) shocking. I uploaded a few screenshots, having good faith that these are appropriate ones and complies with Microsoft Screenshot Licensing practice. Unfortunately a bot (which I cannot blame) posts warning on my user page, and I panic-ly checks the pages of my screenshots, and there I found the following warning :

{{di-orphaned fair use}}

I know it's my bad to unable to link it immediately to any articles, but I was consulting with a more senior editor to help me decide the best form of those images to use. And then suddenly a big red scary warning (for me) appears underside of screenshots I uploaded, giving me a 7-days chance to fix it or it's going to be speedy deleted.

As I known (tell me if I wrong), a speedy deletion is reserved for downright wrong edits, such as vandalism, blanking, harassment, etc., but now I am is getting threatened with the same action. This is... really scary for me. I tried all my best to comply with screenshot uploading policy and/or licensing rules, and with one mistake (orphaning the image), I am being faced with the consequences of speedy deletion.

I am suggesting that the way of notifying user upon this form of offense is modified, so, as for example, the user is told that his images must be modified in a certain way to kept in Wikipedia, instead of telling them that their images will be deleted if they do nothing. I think it is more informative, and helps user learn upon mistakes they've made. I also suggests, in a way I don't know, the "scare level" of speedy deletion is decreased.

Thank you

---

Malikussaid (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free content enforcement is something that we are supposed to handle quickly, given the Foundation's resolution on handling of non-free media. We regularly delete non-free content not used in articles (per WP:NFCC#9), and do so in a timely manner. And the message is correct - you have to include those in articles to keep them around, so there's no "modification" that can be done. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing, speedy deletion is not reserved for downright wrong edits as you state, it's reserved for any content where the result of any deletion discussion would result in overwhelming consensus to delete. Downright wrong edits are definitely part of that, but not only, there's a number of purely routine deletions that are covered by speedy. As Masem explains above, we will not keep non-free content on the servers that aren't used, and deletion of such unused content within 7 days is routine maintenance.

There's also an important notion in that warning, which is that non-free material should not be uploaded without a valid reason and a plan for inclusion. A non-free image isn't "yours", in this case it's Microsoft's, and while there are a couple of good reasons to use them, limiting that usage to what is strictly necessary is a sound policy to help ensure that our access to what we DO use doesn't get more restricted in the future. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully accept the MASEM's reply and first paragraph of MLauba's reply. But I has a plan for inclusion of those images in articles.

Malikussaid (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Realistically until you know you can use them , you shouldn't upload them here. If you were asking for advice of which of two or more images to use for an article, it is much better to use a free image hosting site to provide the links, and then once you're ready to include the selected image in WP, upload then. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know this policy.

----

Malikussaid (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysopping RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices impacts administrative practice, so it's relevant to watchers of this page, so please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies block

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:Ironholds blocked User:Drmies for 24 hours for a personal attack. I have unblocked Drmies. I will add to this but wish to post it quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds blocked both Drmies and ScottyWong. Why act on only one side of the dispute if you're unblocking? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you intend to unblock Scottywong as well? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: from my perspective, in response to perceived or real goading, Drmies left an utterly inappropriate comment on Scottwong's talkpage. It's for that that I've blocked him. I note that Bbb23 not only failed to discuss the unblock with me, but failed to even leave a notice anywhere (other than AN) that the unblock had taken place - and inquire as to how Bbb23 can possibly consider himself utterly uninvolved from a block of the person who nominated him to become an admin in the first place, less than six months ago. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for fucks sake Bbb23. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, DO NOT unblock a civility block without discussion. That's never ever been helpful.--Scott Mac 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well this is an all-round fucking disaster, isn't it? GiantSnowman 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remind the community that it isn't wheel warring if you unblock the user who nominated you for adminship. Obviously. There is a policy for that, right? —Tom Morris (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't see any discussion between you and Ironholds, Bbb23. Did you try discussing the block with him before unilaterally undoing it? That's generally considered, at the very least, a minimum requirement before unblocking in a heated situation, especially when you're unblocking one side of a two-sided dispute while leaving the other blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Apparently, Drmies was blocked for this post on User:Scottywong's talk page. Although Drmies's comments are harsh, they do not rise to the level of a personal attack, and even if they straddle the line (e.g., "mediocre editor"), they do not justify a block.

I don't know what it is about today, but I can't remember seeing so much drama in such a short space of time. People need to get a grip.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think I'll extend my holiday vacation from WP another few days. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered actually trying to respond to the rather serious issue with your block raised above? Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Scotty has been unblocked by Floq. Youreallycan was also blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If the personal attack straddles the line, it's pretty inadvisable to unblock the admin who nominated you for admin, without discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Floquenbeam unblocked Scotty. Go Phightins! 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Re-instate Bbb23 failed to discuss the block with Ironholds (or seemingly anyone else). Bbb23 is also involved. The original blocks (plural) were justified. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I should highlight that I think both Scotty and Drmies make great contributions to wikipedia, this doesn't change that the blocks were justified. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I didn't know Scotty was blocked because he's not on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess ignorance is bliss :) --Malerooster (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• A bit of research before unblocking seems warranted. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I was going to say, "I unblocked this one because I knew who he was" is a really bad defence to the issues raised. Ironholds (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Bbb, I think that shows that you were involved and shouldn't have acted in an admin capacity. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Many a time poor behavior by MF has been excused on the grounds that he was baited. Well, so was Scotty. Are we going to be consistent? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Certainly! Next time you see Malleus say something that crosses the line, let me know and I'll block him fast enough to make your head spin. Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As much as I respect Scotty and hated to see him get blocked, I've got to admit I admire your mentality. No favors for anyone. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't afford to lose good editors. But for every one editor slapped on the wrist if we enforce incivility, a dozen leave if we don't - not people we know, not people we see, just people who walk into an increasingly hostile and aggressive atmosphere and go "this is not for me". Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously? Ironholds, there's no need to be trigger-happy, particularly when you didn't even discuss it with either of them. Not to mention it's an admin in good standing who has never been blocked before who made a borderline comment. Then you went farther blocked the target for rising to the bait (not well, I grant). Then Bbb23, you unblocked someone you are clearly uninvolved with? Typically you try to find some consensus first. Blocks are meant to prevent drama, not make it worse. I think it's time to break out a few whales to smack people with. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Ed, both of them were baited, by each other. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the "but mummy, the other boy said a bad word first!" as a defence. It wasn't acceptable in primary school and it's not acceptable here. Being in good standing does not give you carte blanche to do whatever the heck you want, which is, I understand, precisely what Drmies and SW were arguing over in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't, but blocking established contributors (like it or not, those who have been here longer tend to be more well-known) without any discussion first tends to lead to more drama, no matter how you slice it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  In my experience blocking established contributors under the civility policy, or not blocking them and instead taking it to AN/I or AN, are both actions that seem to attract precisely the same semantic argument from Known Parties and precisely the same cheerleaders and hangers on. Faced with two equally dramatic options, I picked the one that prohibited both parties from exacerbating the situation directly. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Eh, we have philosophical differences in our approach, as do most people who have opinions on the whole civility enforcement debacle issue. Also please note that all my comments mean nothing against you, as I really do admire your work, but I disagree with your stance here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Totally understandable; I'd point out we have both managed to disagree about something of great import without at any point directing the f-bomb at each other. Even on Wikipedia, miracles can happen! :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I was tempted to post a comment using every swear (including British slang) I know or could find, but I feel like that would not be taken well, given the general tone of this section. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Moving back one meta-level and looking at the dispute that led to these blocks...I'd like to hear any of the involved parties explain exactly why they felt attacking each other was a good way to go about...whatever they were going about. Ditto for why Bbb23 thought this was such a horrible emergency that he not only couldn't discuss with the blocking admin, but also couldn't research the situation. Guys, you're both more than experienced enough to know that what you were doing could only make things worse, and not correct the issues you felt were occurring. Bbb23, you're experienced enough to know unilateral cowboy unblocks with no discussion make situations that were bad enough worse. Perhaps blocks here weren't the only solution, but good lord you all know better than to have done what you were doing, and I find it difficult to support anything that looks like acting like the behavior tonight wasn't a problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• As noted above, I've unblocked Scottywong. I assume my dislike of SW is well-enough known that accusations of protecting my friends won't be thrown about. I don't suppose everyone would be willing to holster their block buttons and their mouths, go to their corners, and chill out for a while? That would be what grownups would do.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • When you jumped in with your tools before discussion, I don't think you are in a position to come the adult and lecture the children here. You took an action you knew would be controversial, in haste, and without waiting for consensus. There will now inevitably be a prolonged shitstorm, and you are partly to blame.--Scott Mac 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Um, no. That shitstorm started with the original comments and subsequent blocks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bad unblock Aside from the fact that Bbb23 failed to discuss this with blocking admin, Bbb23 is not uninvolved with respect to Drmies. Drmies nominated Bbb3 for adminship. Bbb23 shouldn't be using their tools when they're involved.

@Bbb23: Can you please help defuse the situation by undoing your unblock? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• All aboard the Arbcom Express! Train leaves the station in fifteen minutes--so get all your block-warring and personal attacks in pronto. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If the administrative consensus is that I am involved AND that Drmies should be reblocked, I will defer to that consensus and do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You should have waited for consensus before taking such a controversial act. Whether the unblock was justified or not (I think not, but others will disagree), the haste and lack of discussion were extremely poor judgment.--Scott Mac 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)There was a heated exchange between the two of them, over a discussion that has since been closed. I think the blocks were excessive and did more to fuel drama than reduce incivility, and I'm pleased that both have been unblocked. As the interaction between Drmies and Scottywong is now over, any reblock would not be preventing anything - I'd say it's time to move on. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not a bad unblock - This is all getting extremely petty and retarded. Civility blocks have no consensus at all these days, so undoing one, esp one as poorly-thought-out as this, is justifiable. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock both. Administrators don't have to obey rules. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this doesn't exactly bode well for your complaints about admins getting a double standard, does it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There's clearly a double standard here. Some editors/admins are expected to follow the rules while others get a free pass. I wouldn't mind it so much if someone actually enshrined it into policy: Some editors are more equal than others. At least, it would be honest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. I've seen the exact same situation before where admins have stepped in and blocked two editors who were personally attacking each other etc. The editors weren't admins. They weren't unblocked by any admin. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What we're seeing here is more along the lines of "the admins couldn't put together a conspiracy to protect their ranks if we paid them, because put two of them in a room, give them a topic, and they will instantly disagree on how to handle it." It's not "admins get away with murder" so much as "admins constantly running headfirst into walls, flailing wildly at their buttons and each other. Occasionally, the buttons do something. Usually the worst possible thing, in the eyes of at least one other admin." I would hesitate to say that this unblock shows admins being held to a different standard even if it's is upheld, given that "block-> unblock-> ANI -> screaming about block" is basically how blocks on a lot of popular non-admins also go. It just shows that Bbb23 held them to a different standard than Ironholds does. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would probably agree with fluffernutter except that apparently we're not allowed to agree with each other. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I was unclear; I don't think it's admins being held to a different standard. Just that friends sometimes help friends, and if your friends happen to be administrators, so much the better for the blocked editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Tarc. This was not a bad unblock, it was a terrible unblock. --My76Strat (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you mean the first part. Either you're disagreeing with Tarc or you're agreeing with AQFK.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I struck the ambiguous portions of my comment. This is a bad time for sarcasm and I apologize for succumbing to its use. --My76Strat (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why does the Admin corps not seem to learn anything, each time this happens? It's all bad behavior. And, it's over, and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC) (spelling correction by request Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC))

  There's no such thing as an admin corp. There's over a thousand of us last I checked, elected in different eras of Wikipedia, active in different areas of Wikipedia and coming from completely different backgrounds, both as editors and as human beings. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  Why would that mean there is no such thing as an admin corps? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)(spelling correction by request Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC))

  Admins should be treated like any other if done wrong. Not an administrator but it looks like a very bad unblock to me, they were both treated fairly and equally initially. Unblocking whilst clearly involved and not even looking at overall picture isnt right, saying i dont have Scotty on my watchlist so i didn't know isnt an excuse. If non admins both would of been blocked and unlikely to be unblocked in this manner either should of been discussed. Im not an admin as i say so my view probably means nothing here. Blethering Scot 00:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  It certainly does mean something. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, thanks for unblocking Scotty. Bbb, thanks for unblocking me. These civility blocks are stupid and should be undone as soon as possible. Scotty, I'm sorry about the "mediocre editor" part--too late to take that back, I suppose, but I shouldn't have said it. But you know where I'm coming from: there is too much baiting going on, and if there's sides, it's not "my" side that starts AN/ANI threads, runs to ArbCom, asks for blocks, et cetera. AQFK, you could have stayed out of this one, just to show your good faith.

  This is all too stupid for words, with Ironholds private banhammer and Kww speaking for a non-existent community. I'm sorry I myself got involved in this. I won't call Scotty's remark baiting since that's a low blow--Scotty was just trying to insult me and succeeded very well, but I would never think that he would try to bait me into getting blocked, and I certainly wasn't going for that. I'm glad some people in this thread see that "blocking people to make a point" serves no purpose whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC) This got accidentally eaten in an EC with me a few minutes ago, restoring now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seems odd to focus criticism on the unblock that was likely to be controversial rather then on the block that was certain to be. If the unblock should have been discussed first, certainly the block should have to. All this episode has done is generate needless controversy. Stop blocking people to make a point, and stop blocking people to advance civility when there is clearly no consensus for it. Support unblocking both. Monty₈₄₅ 00:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  If i as a non admin said what both of them said to each other especially Scotty i would of been blocked, no doubt. Admins do not need consensus for that block, now if your involved which bb23 clearly is then he should of discussed either with blocking admin or here first. They started discussion after they unblocked, its too late then. Its just another mess of which there are too many surely this still should not be happening after all thats gone on recently.Blethering Scot 00:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And I wouldn't think such a block would be good either. When two well established editors (and certainly I would consider you an established editor) get into a mutual spat like that, blocking often does more harm then good. We need to be a bit less trigger happy with the block button. Monty₈₄₅ 00:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Monty. The unblocks were "cowboy" but not the blocks? That's absurd. Ironholds, blocking is as violent and hostile an action as can well be performed on this site. A "slap on the wrist" is a miserably inappropriate metaphor for blocks of long-time editors in good standing with previously clean block logs. I ask you to consider whether your blocks were more or less violent and hostile than the original offenses? Come on, please engage the empathy and think about it. Bishonen | talk 00:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

Thinking about it would be good, because while there are good blocks and bad blocks, there is nothing violent about a block. Whether it was hostile is more of an intent thing and may go into whether it is good or bad, but it is not violent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Linguistic note: violence has in some circles come to include the exercise of force or official authority leading to injury, even that injury is not physical. In that context, calling a block an act of violence does make sense. Monty₈₄₅ 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I challenge your assertion that "there is clearly no consensus for [civility blocks]". I further challenge the implication that a consensus could ever supersede an existing policy; it can not! A personal attack is as prohibited as a legal threat and both are as sanction-able. --My76Strat (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is drawing the line between mere incivility and a personal attack. There is no consensus for civility blocks not rising to the level of personal attacks. Further, in that sort of back and forth, as long as both editors are making criticisms in good faith, and not trolling, I think its mere incivility, even if it includes otherwise actionable personal attacks. There is not a bright line between what is a fair criticism and what is a personal attack, and when emotions are running high, we should exercise restraint in welding the block button. Monty₈₄₅ 00:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"its mere incivility, even if it otherwise includes actionable personal attacks" Where does that come from? What basis is there for that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy that says as much; its a practical approach to a very complex and messy topic. As there is no bright line as to what constitutes a blockable personal attack, blocking when two editors are criticizing each other is often going to lead to controversy, often doing more harm and disruption then the editors were doing in the first place. Obviously there are times when blocks are still needed, but we are too eager. Monty₈₄₅ 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not blocking when two editors are, or one editor is, making personal attacks is often going to lead to controversy, often doing more harm than if they got a forced time off, because they should not be personally attacking others, now or in the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Support unblock Bad block to begin with. Nothing in that comment crossed a line that isn't crossed by many regular editors on a regular basis. I'm not particularly concerned with COIs when the right decision was made. B³23, please discuss with the blocking admin in the future to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Sædon^talk 01:13, 30 December 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.

Malleus Fatorum

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 a related note, I've indeffed Malleus Fatorum. Both Drmies and Scottywong have complained that blocking them constitutes a double standard, and, unfortunately, they are quite correct. I expect that they thought that meant that they should be unblocked, but I quite disagree. There's no interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferret_legging/GA2&diff=prev&oldid=530255820#GA_Reassessment that doesn't cross the line of WP:NPA.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My god, Kww, I can't believe I voted for you for arbcom. [/me slaps self upside the head.] Bishonen | talk 01:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

Sorry to disappoint you, Bishonen. Didn't you get my message that I thought people should uphold policy instead of treating some editors and policies preferentially? I'll have to work on my campaign for next year if that wasn't clear the last two times I ran.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• For all that it's going to matter in the uproar that will inevitably end in someone controversially unblocking, this looks like a good block to me. Treating other editors like people worthy of something other than insults is and should be one of the most basic requirements we ask from our editors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good block but unblock In an ideal world Malleus should have been blocked, but this isn't an ideal world. Any block etc should basically be left to ArbCom because otherwise things will go crazy; if you think a block is justified, go there, because no other block will stick. Whether you wish it or not, Malleus will be unblocked in 5 minutes, and we will be back where we started. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• That should help calm things down, KWW, nice one. --John (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked; there's clearly no consensus for an indef block, you're substituting your judgement for others'. Do not make blocks that you don't believe have consensus, it's an abuse of your admin tools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking people without justification is as well, Floquenbeam.—Kww(talk) 00:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. Unblocking restored the status quo ante, the consensus decision based on the AN/ANI threads. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about that there's no consensus, Floq? There's been pretty much no discussion either way, given that you unblocked five minutes after the block was reported. It's a bit early to call either consensus or no consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the previous ANI thread about this issue, already closed. It's linked somewhere above, or just Ctrl-F "Malleus" on ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The consensus that we have a group of admins that irresponsibly insist on keeping Malleus unblocked would seem to outweigh the consensus that Malleus isn't in the habit of making personal attacks. That ANI thread was not closed as a consensus that Malleus's behaviour was acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Floq, I see what you were looking at, but I think you're misreading what constitutes consensus for something like this. The threads from yesterday/today were about Malleus being rude on the same GAR, yesterday, and a request to bar a user from interacting with him over that. This thread appears to be a block based on incivility Malleus put forth after those threads were begun. No one in the old threads appears to have an opinion on the incivility that caused this block, because it hadn't happened then. It's downright weird to call "no consensus" on behavior that hadn't happened when the "no consensus" was (debateably) formed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, there was no AN thread about the block, it was about having a limited interaction ban of another editor. The ANI thread was pretty much closed before it really started because it was started by a DUCK. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter and IRWolfie are correct on that sequence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on AN or ANI of this diff, I would very much welcome Floquenbeam pointing us to where this took place. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to Indef Block Malleus Fatuorum

I'll be clear here: I consider Floquenbeam's reversal of my block to be unfounded and unwise, and would like to see a community consensus that would allow it to be reinstated without crossing WP:WHEELWAR. It's clear that Floqenbeam misinterpreted the discussion on WP:ANI when he considered it to include the behaviour that I blocked for.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose It should be clear from the many past discussions regarding Malleus' conduct that the community does not support an indef block. Given the past contention regarding him, it should be equally clear that further blocks WILL be controversial, and absent egregious conduct far beyond what occurred here, and such block should be discussed FIRST. At this point, we need to establish consensus in favor of a new blocking if we are to act. Now that the block is undone, there must be clear consensus to move away from the now restored status quo. Monty₈₄₅ 00:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Also, I do not consider the conduct at issue here block worthy, and it is most certainly does not justify an indef block. Monty₈₄₅ 00:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Literally per Monty, word for word. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed with Monty, and with Ironholds. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Will you show me where Ironholds claimed that "You wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit you in the ass" doesn't cross the line of NPA? I must have missed it (or, more likely, he never said it).—Kww(talk) 01:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The community has made its wishes on this subject clear numerous times and and indef is clearly not what is wanted.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't presume to speak for the community. Do you, as an individual, champion the right of editors to tell another editor that he "wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit you in the ass". Please directly state your views, don't state what you think other people's views are.—Kww(talk) 01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Until we have a considerably more explicit policy on civility, a subject on which there are many different (and culturally diverse) opinions, then indef incivility blocks on established and constructive editors will remain a bad idea - blocks can sometimes be effective in defusing short term conflicts, but even then they can easily create drama and make things worse. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that at this point, this isn't something the community can handle, based on the past track record of these threads. Malleus has little to no interest in moderating his language or behavior. Some people have little to no interest in tolerating this, some people have a lot of interest in tolerating this at all costs. Arbcom has no interest in cutting the knot. For what it's worth, my personal belief is that people who have little/no interest in speaking to others in a manner that accords them very basic human respect are better suited to hobbies other than Wikipedia; unfortunately, I don't rule the world, and other people think differently. I can't see how this thread can close in anything but a heated, ragey no-consensus manner that at best, would take out a couple more editors as collateral damage or the ragequit or disruption-block type. I'd suggest that if people want to pursue this - again - they take it to arbcom - again- who will probably refuse to deal with it - again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support reinstating the indef block. I'd also support unblocking as soon as a credible request is posted by MF. --My76Strat (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I'm going to be controversial and say what I imagine many are thinking but are afraid to say - wikipedia is better off with an insulting and gruff Malleus than without him at all. I think civility blocks are counter-productive in the light of such impressive content contributions, and it's obvious from previous discussions that this kind of block is never going to stick without an ArbCom case. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Wow. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Just came here to say that I disagree quite strongly with this. We don't need insulting people around here, no matter how awesome they are. Having said that, Malleus has become one of Wikipedia's unblockables, so there's no real point to this discussion. He's not going to be blocked. And if he is, it will take less than 1 hour and he will be unblocked again. No amount of discussion will change that. --Conti|✉ 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  What saddens me about this is that a lot of people seem to be convinced that we must either let Malleus behave exactly as he wishes, or we must go without content forevermore. There's a third option here that people seem to ignore: we could keep both content and constructive engagement with other editors. Most other editors manage that with no effort. I don't know or pretend to know why Malleus prefers to give us a Sophie's Choice instead, but we are not obligated to accept the terms of the bargain as he prefers them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I like what Basalisk said. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Basalisk and Monty845. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't frequent ANI at all, but I want to make it clear how significant Malleus and his work are to this project by weighing in. Frankly, I think that after all this time people would know what to expect of him. You can all privately loathe Malleus all you want, but all these dogged reports about him are eventually going to drive him from the project, and we'll lose one of our best writers. To me, that's a clear net loss. ceranthor 01:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Take it to Arbcom Any discussion here is just going to be dominated by his supporters and detractors, and lead nowhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Take it to Arbcom Agree with IRWolfie. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block or taking this to arbcom. I do not approve of MF's incivility, but think that blocking him or taking things to arbcom would generate more heat than light. Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Desysop Kwww for displaying extremely poor judgement, abusing administrative power and general drama mongering. Seriously a whole bunch of people really need to get a life. This is beyond ridiculous.Volunteer Marek 01:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That's not actually a sanction which can be imposed through discussions on this board. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah I know, but that's basically what *should* happen.Volunteer Marek 01:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Take it to Arbcom for the reasons noted by IRWolfie. ArbCom has handled Malleus previously and is the appropriate body to follow up on subsequent issues. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm 99.5% sure that this was a cynical ploy on Kwww's part to create drama which could then be used to open up yet another pointless Malleus-related ArbCom case. There's no freakin' way that he didn't know that the block would last. So block, then admin-board drama then show up at ArbCom requests with an innocent look on their face claiming "gee, other steps in the DR process didn't work". Bleah. Volunteer Marek 01:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If this does end up at Arbcom, I hope Arbcom carefully considers all of the admin conduct in this whole mess. Maybe they will also figure out a way forward on the whole Civility/Personal Attack quandry that is at the root of this and dozens of other instances of drama. Malleus's conduct should be a secondary issue at most. Monty₈₄₅ 01:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That was tried in the 'civility enforcement' case earlier this year, with what I think are generally regarded as disappointing results. Based on that experience, it would be better for ArbCom to focus on the actions of the various editors (in the follow up to this case several Arbitrators have expressed frustration with Malleus' continued conduct, so it would end up a major part of such a case/motion). Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose What is going on? Did everybody just go crazy, or is there some block quota we're trying to reach for this year? I can't believe Scotty and Drmies just got blocked when a warning would have sufficed. Two wrongs don't make a right, and blocking Malleus now just to be fair is a third wrong, and it still doesn't make a right. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support because I disagree with the statement "wikipedia is better off with an insulting and gruff Malleus than without him at all". Just look at how much community time is being wasted by this - yet again. Year after year, and while the community jumps through hoops to make excuses or silence critics or justify one approach or another, Malleus makes not one iota of effort to behave even slightly differently, when even a small change in his approach would avoid this happening over and over. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but the community time being wasted is being wasted by folks like Kwww or BoNL and all the others who seem to derive some kind of masochistic pleasure from poking Malleus.Volunteer Marek 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually its not Malleus, its people like you that make the community jump through these hoops... why don't you make the effort to change? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Precisely. Just imagine how little time we would be wasting if no one unblocked an editor that showed no sign of changing his behaviour.—Kww(talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• That's exactly the point, Epipelagic, I have made changes, for example ceasing to post on Malleus' talk page, at all. Is he capable of even such a tiny level of self control himself? There's a reality check for you. No, it's not "people like" me that make the community do anything. And don't give me the old sob story about how Malleus would never be insulting if it weren't for goading from evil cabals or whatever, I've heard it all before and I've seen how blatantly untrue that is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - support desysopping Kwww per Volunteer Marek--Epipelagic (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Silly and punitive civility block given without warning. --John (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - With a possible return if Malleus accepts a modified version of the standard offer that would allow for immediate return in exchange for stopping incivil remarks. This is very generous because Malleus, for the umpteenth time, retired while under the microscope and then unretired after the scrutiny of him was done. As usual, people claimed that since he was retiring there wasn't any point in blocking, in addition to the other people that always appear and defend him. These people also predictably demand Kww get desysopped because he dared to block Malleus for violating policy and being part of the anti-Malleus admin cabal of EVIL. However, the community has apparently decided Malleus is a vested contributor and is thus exempt from the policies that mere mortal editors must follow. To put it simply, this merry-go-round from hell will keep happening until something is done to stop it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Take it to Arbcom Per Wolfie. Besides, we pay Arbcom the big bucks to handle stuff like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, or alternately throw it to ArbCom. Hopefully the new committee isn't as spineless as the old. Ultimately the problem is not that the civility policy isn't enforced (although it is a problem): it's that the community can't seem to decide if it should be. A firm commitment that yes, we're going to be a community of vile, abuse-slinging, first-amendment-lovin' troglodytes would almost be preferable because at least there'd be certainty. Luckily, we have a body tasked with making decisions in user conduct situations when the community can't agree: it's called arbcom. Hopefully the new arbs will actually want to try and make a stab at resolving this mess - lord knows they can't do any worse. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, to get a bit of common sense BF in here, this is more indication that this was a cynical block, not meant to stand on its own (which it didn't have a chance in hell of), but rather as a way of provoking yet another pointless Malleus-related ArbCom case. Shameful.Volunteer Marek 02:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Kww .. and.... never mind - move along - Youreallycan 02:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Honestly, I feel a bit like invoking WP:IAR and just collapsing all this garbage and archiving it. You guys are just generating ridiculous drama for no discernible purpose. Whatever this shit is about it sure as fuck isn't about writing an encyclopedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - And here's why. Its preventative, not punative. Standard offer applies. No, we don't need civility police...we need professional acting editors and I don't think it helps at all to continue to take a blind eye to the extreme nature of some actions. Is Malleus a great content contributer? Oh heck yeah. Does that give him immunity from our civility policy? Oh heck no. This is't a one time thing. This isn't about taking sides on any civility discussion. This is about the five pillars and whether or not, we even give a crap about them. If content is all that matters dump the five pillars (the images used aren't even pillars but capitals. LOL just a slight bit of humor to lighten the moment) and stop allowing anyone to edit. Just allow those that the community feels have such excellent contributions that it doesn't matter what they say to other editors or how it effects the project overall...or the ones they are involved in.

KWW was/is right in the block decision. Consensus is not a vote anyway, but more important is why the block was made. If it overrode a percieved consensus, very well. If we desyops KWW over this....there is a pretty long list of other admin who warred today over other blocks. I have no dog in any of these fights and wont begin to stick my toe in those muddied waters. But my watchpage showed a game of whacko moll going on with blocks and unblocks and if KWW has the tools taken away....then there are quite a few others who will need the same action. Likely this will go to arbcom. If Malleus retires it is likely the commitie will reject the case or make no decision. I say...this is a community problem and the community needs to see through the dust and smike and just indef ban the editor. There is no single editor that is so great that their absence will be a true detriment to the encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. - No way. He is a net positive to the project and he helps keep this place honest. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as Malleus hasn't committed vandalism or used sockpuppets, nor has he used foul language. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• here. This is all this about. 173.79.39.133 (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Somebody snow close this. There is no realistic chance this will close as "enacted." We very recently had an ArbCom election, and the community had an opportunity to elect candidates from the "tough on Malleus" contingent. The community chose not to do so. That's as close to a site-wide referendum on such a thing as we're likely to get. 28bytes (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Demiurge1000. If it doesn't work here, then take it to ArbCom. Also, the fact that every admin that takes tough action is faced with de-sysopping is why so many people refuse to be admins. Malleus and his posse have succeeded in driving me away from the project. Who's next? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose What I have to say about this, I've already said it on a recent ArbCom case request. I am not a personal friend of Malleus, but this sort of overreaction is worrysome, both from Kww and Floq. I am not saying that we are bound to whatever Malleus wants to do with the way he talks to us, but it's quite clear that blocks (even less indef ones) are not the way to go. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:15, 30 December 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:RPP

Can an admin head over to WP:RPP, there is about 8hs worth of backlog, Of particular interest is WP:RPP#2012 in UFC, protection here may stop some editors getting blocks for WP:3RR as WP is not a race. ✍ Mtking ✉ 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

See also WP:VPT#Snotbot (or "Teh Dramahz break the wiki"). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done backlog cleared, sorry I haven't been there for a day :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Providing text of deleted article to offsite location?

I got the following requested following a deletion I had nominated ([14]) Effectively, the user wants me to provide a copy of the article before deletion to PasteBin. Is there anything "wrong" with doing this? --MASEM (t) 20:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to. It seems a pity to have deleted it if it was useful to people. It got over 15,000 hits in November. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It went through a proper AFD, based on NOTCATALOG. There's probably lots of pages that fail core NOT policies that had gotten lots of hits that we've deleted. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem providing a copy - the version prior to deletion was licensed CC-BY-SA, so anyone was free to take a copy of it for their own use. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, nothing obligates you to post the article to pastebin, really. If the user wants it, I'd suggest providing a copy via e-mail as we usually do, then they can do with it as they wish. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much that I have an aversion to doing so, just needed to make sure that I didn't step on any established toes. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We get those requests at WP:REFUND all the time. I personally refuse to action them, but they are typically actionned (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with fulfilling this type of request as long as the article didn't contain BLP violations or the like. In fact, it is often good practice to provide a copy of the deleted material as soon as requested, to minimize the hurt feelings etc. resulting from the deletion of good-faith contributions. (Incidentally, it looks to me as a completely uninformed bystander that this article could well have been kept, although I don't have the subject-matter expertise to be certain, much less to DRV it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I did take a good amount of time before even putting the AFD in for the article. I had to outline why I felt it was different from nearly-similar lists in the AFD nom, if anything to remain true to NOTCATALOG. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

My default position is that articles with hundreds of edits and thousands of hits should be kept whenever possible, in the absence of BLP problems or incurable POV problems or the like. I suppose I'm betraying some form of inclusionist tendencies by saying that, and I'm sure some people will suggest various kinds of treatment for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Newyorkbrad's second comment to an extent — while I'm perhaps not as fond of keeping articles, I'm strongly in favor of keeping titles that are old. I agree with his first comment: as far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with this content; the only reason that it was deleted was that we've created inclusion guidelines that don't include this kind of list, and there's no problem with someone hosting this that wants to. What if you undelete the article and immediately convert it into a redirect to List of games using Steam authentication? You could then just point the requester to some of the old revisions before it got converted into a redirect. The worst that could happen is that someone un-redirects it, and resolving that issue won't be harder than clicking http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steam_games&action=protect. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a very different list, with a different inclusion criteria (and why that was kept), so that would be improper. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that a problem? It's a list of Steam games, so creating List of Steam games as a redirect to it wouldn't be problematic, and since there's nothing out-and-out wrong with the content of the deleted list, it won't hurt anyone if we undelete it. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How does it not violate GFDL to give copies of deleted articles without all of the history? I know this is routinely done, but doesn't that break GFDL? If I contribute edits to an article, it gets deleted, and then someone else asks for a copy of it, they don't have the attribution history to show that my work (and that of others) is part of it. LadyofShalott 02:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that raises an interesting question. What happens with good-faith reusers of our content, mirror sites and such, which comply with GFDL/CC-BY-SA and play by all the rules, and then after some indeterminate time, the articles they have reused legitimately get deleted... How is this any different? --Jayron32 03:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend's comment. Keeping the old history under a redirect would appear to solve the problem of copyright attribution for the provided material. Restoring List of Steam games and then making it a redirect to List of games using Steam authentication would not run afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG in my opinion. The cataloguish material would not appear in the generally visible encyclopedia. On Jayron32's question, see section g of foundation:Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content which provides some wiggle room in cases where attribution via link is impractical. It appears you should provide a list of authors if the link is no longer working. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How do good-faith reusers obtain a list of authors after we delete our article? --Jayron32 04:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah ah, I see, and agree with that (or perhaps just redirect to Steam (software). Would one indef protect the redirects? --MASEM (t) 04:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect could go to any reasonable Steam-related page. If there was a concern that people would undo the redirect and put back the article, protection could be imposed. If good-faith reusers of a deleted page are quite concerned about our copyright, I guess they need to contact a Wikipedia admin to see if they will provide the attribution information. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Attributation only requires the list of contributors and that can be sent with the page. I'd be very wary of any mechanism like this that can allow any user to force us to undelete content that has been legitimately been deleted at AFD. Especially when there are just as simple ways of doing this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Attribution would seem to require the entire history not just a list of contributers (One supposes we could send the history data along, of who contributed what and when, with the knowledge that it will then likely be lost down the road, but at least the admin has provided proper attribution at that point). I'm not clear though on what the objection is to maintaining the history on site? It was created at this sites invitation under GFDL (log of all changes to the work), even if it has been later deemed not article worthy. Is it a space issue? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm alerting the queen of copyright to this discussion -- I know she has provided attribution history for deleted articles in the past, so this process is likely documented somewhere. —SpacemanSpiff 15:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• List of contributors works. See Terms of Use #7(b). This provision was also included in the older Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is clear then. When we delete pages should we replace the content with a list of contributors? In that way external sites already linking to our material and using the URL for attribution can maintain their licence compliance. Thincat (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I wish I were more technologically inclined, because it seems like it would be ideal if we could somehow link to the history in the deletion log. I have no clue if that's possible. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not the way Mediawiki currently works, but a quick inspection of the relevant code tells me that allowing looking at the history of a deleted article by separating it from being able to actually see the deleted revisions or undelete them is feasible and I could make a patch for that relatively simply.

    That said, there are legal implications there that would need Geoff's input. Do you think it's sufficiently desirable a feature that it's worth it for me to start the ball rolling? — Coren ^(talk) 18:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I remember back in the early days (pre-2005), non-admins could see the entire Special:Undelete page, just not the text of the revisions. The right was later revoked due to possible issues with seeing the edit history (e.g. potentially compromising edit summaries). However, allowing non-admins to see just a list of contributors seems quite reasonable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I heartily agree with this idea. It's actually more of a good idea than it was pre-2005, since we now have RevDel for edit summaries and usernames, and we can oversight a page when its very title is a problem. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

(←) I'm thinking that, perhaps, Special:Contributors/ThePage might be a more elegant solution that does not cause issues with edit comments either. Ima talk to WMF about which work tickle their fancy and propose an implementation. — Coren ^(talk) 22:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you're suggesting a page that would spit out the list of contributors and nothing more? Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like it's just a view of the edit history that only shows usernames and IPs (and maybe dates), but with edit summaries and anything rev-deleted omitted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Right; and possibly coalescing the history to just list the editors and number of contributions, say, in a format more amenable to using as credits. This has the advantage of being generally useful even on pages that are not deleted since it offers a permanent link to contributors that makes it particularly easy to provide attribution. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that does sound like it would be something useful to have generally, seeing as attribution is a key part of our licensing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread has my head spinning a bit (in a good way). How do IP's play into this? Do we pretend an IP is a singular "person" for the purpose of satisfying attribution? Technically, an IP is "anonymous" in this context (even if it is less anonymous than a reg'ed account in other ways) so could/would you just state "and 45 edits by various anonymous editors" in a list of attribs? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That, actually, is one of the questions I'm sure Geoff will want to chime upon. I'll be starting a chat with Maggie and him after the new year in order to do this the right way for attribution; I've already got a working prototype on a test wiki of mine, so implementation is basically "whatever we need that works within the legal constraints". — Coren ^(talk) 03:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Legal should be involved, as it seems a proper GFDL log identifies who contributed, what was contributed, and when. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when you create a book, it gives the contributors in alphabetical order by their usernames, and at the end of the list it appends ", and [number] anonymous edits". Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What this entire discussion seems to suggest is that we need to rethink the AFD process in the case of a close as "delete". If the information is not bogus or copyrighted (read: no value to keep), a consensus to "delete" may be getting rid of potentially useful edit contribution information that would be required for CC-By attribution. Therefore, in AFD discussions that trend towards "delete", it would make sense that either the delete !voters or the closing admin figure out some target that a redirect can be made towards, and then the closing admin would be responsible for blanking the page, putting in the redirect, and fully locking the page as to "delete" it but maintain the pretense of a deletion without the actual problems of deletion. We would likely need a template that can be added to the redirect page, saying that if the user wants to replace the template with a user space page that is meant to be different from the deleted material, they must contact the admin that closed the discussion or WP:AN if the admin doesn't respond to request the unlocking to do so.

Note that this would be a different situation if the !votes were to redirect/merge. In such a case the admin may create the redirect but should not lock down the redirect; there's no need to maintain the deletion pretense there.

The only snag in this is if there really is no redirect target, and this might be where we have a special page for listing articles that were "deleted" via this new process, perhaps some WP:AFD/Log/YYYY page. Here again we can list the instructions for requesting "undeletion" (removing the lock). Also we have to be very clear when content should be outright deleted. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Protecting such a page by default is a bad idea. Pages are often recreated appropriately after their previously non-notable subjects gain notability, or after someone comes up with good sources that didn't appear beforehand. Of course we should protect when the page is restored to its pre-deletion version or otherwise inappropriately recreated, but it shouldn't be automatic. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to conisder, aside from what we do after an AFD, is what we would do with this edit history information in the case of a PROD or CSD? BOZ (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, "deleted" articles aren't really gone, so the information isn't lost. Anyone could request that content for a page if they wanted it. And sometimes the article title itself is a problem, which opens another can of worms. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

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've Spun this off as a separate section since it has no direct connection to the previous thread. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  I've updated the section title - "Administrative abuse" is abuse occurring in administration; "Administrator abuse" is abuse of administrators. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Scott MacDonald has not withdrawn his personal attack against me, and has faced no penalty. Perhaps some of the champions of civility enforcement and no-personal-attacks could show that they have principle and indefinitely block Scott for personal attacks and disrupting discussion (probably not intentionally) rather than just heap abuse on Malleus? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you attacked him first. Were you disciplined for it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Did you really think this was acceptable? Scott MacDonald's response seems remarkably restrained. Hut 8.5 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Did Kiefer withdraw that blatantly inappropriate remark? If not, he should be blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Purely WP:POINTY post; this WP:BOOMERANG worthy. You trolled an admin about cancer and he responded to you, citing how inappropriate it was, and now you call for him to be blocked two months later, citing some perceived personal attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC) (added 19:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC))

I am not going to comment on the "cancer" discussion. I have nothing to add to my post which Kiefer helpfully links to above and you can draw your own inference. You will note in it I stated I would not comment or interact with Kiefer in any way after that, and instructed Kiefer not to post on my page again. So, I am disappointed that having posted this here, he took the opportunity to appear on my userpage to tell me. I'd thank others to instruct him that the project would be best served if he should not attempt to communicate with me in any way at all going forward. I have no desire to be made aware of his contemptible presence ever again.--Scott Mac 20:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page is subject to Wikipedia policy, Scott, and I am sorry about your issues. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal

Per the evidence provided by Hut 8.5, I am proposing that this thread WP:BOOMERANG on Kiefer. Trolling someone about cancer is not cool (cancer is not a joke) and it should not be ignored. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Demiurge's comment below, I will be more specific: I think that a one week block would be appropriate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) 24 hours is probably more reasonable, given that the incident is two months old. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - you're going to need some sort of concrete proposal here if people are going to support/oppose it. ("Boomerang is needed" is not a concrete proposal.) So suggest one. One year civility restriction? Six month ban on KW opening new AN/ANI threads or re-opening existing ones? One year ban on KW calling any other editor a liar or otherwise accusing them of dishonesty? Twelve hour block for blatantly offensive trolling about cancer? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How about a 24-hour block? Seems good enough to me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of it, if passed, can the blocking admin do it exactly at 12:00 on 31st December 2012, so that he can say "Blocked until next year"? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind Kiefer was indefinitely blocked 3 days ago for disruption. A 24 hour block isn't going to work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's rare to be in the company of such self-righteous editors:

Scott stated the falsehood that men cannot grow breasts. I'm sorry that you all know so little about the standard screenings for male cancers, the prevalence of such cancers, or the side effects of treatment, or have such malice that you could imagine that I was trolling. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support block, escalated back to indef. Seriously, Kiefer, attacking your fellow editors with those insults while your behavior is being discussed? And your post at Scott's page is impossible to take seriously when you name it "Male tits" and continually use "you" when referring to Scott and cancer. It really does connote you were just trying to get a rise out of him. And just coming off an indef for disruption? Yeah, it does seem like malice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm missing something here, but why did Kiefer post this two months after the edits in questions happened? I'm puzzled. --Conti|✉ 21:47, 30 December 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.

Disruptive behavior by Earl King Jr. (AN #2) and Neutrality of The Venus Project

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.

Earl King Jr. has been disruptive on the article page of The Venus Project.

• 1. His first disruptive behavior incident noted that "he repeatedly accuses Ijon of being biased because Earl King claims that Ijon is a member of the group itself.--Bbb23" and informed him that, "Sorry, no, you dont remove other peopoles talk page comments twice on a whim. Thats grounds for an immeidate block! If you gfel it inapprooproate ou should discuss it or take it here.Lihaas" and "Earl, your repetitive comments about Ijon's supposed non-neutral position are not helpful.--Bbb23"
• 2. He reverted a constructive article edit containing encyclopedic information about the project's history that was verifiable and properly sourced with page numbers, paragraph information, time spots, and quotes, back to his incomplete and inaccurate version with the edit summary of "Remove new wordy promo version. More like propaganda from the group than literal information," which suggested a group member contacted the sources (Miami News, Lionel Rolfe, WTVJ/Larry King, and William Gazecki) to publish propaganda on their behalf.
• 3. A review of his contribution history since March 12, 2012 shows his edits primarily, if not entirely, consists of reverting and removing information from various articles surrounding the same topic. He was repeatedly informed on his self-created clean up section on the article's talk page to cease disrupting article improvement.
• 4. He reverted another edit with critical commentary by New York Times back to his incomplete and nonrepresentative version with the edit summary of "same edit, different name. No. En.Wikipedia is not a promotional mouth piece for any group or company." He was informed in the article talk page that the encyclopedic information was notable work (the Lionel Rolfe source references Madman Muntz's half million commission, Fresco's Air Force patent, Forest Ackerman nominating him for president, as told by Jack Catran), which he afterwards described in the talk page that "an exposition of their philosophy belongs elsewhere, assuming that it is sufficiently notable for other sources to have discussed it" which suggested the enecylopedic information belonged at an unnamed, somewhere else and aforementioned sources haven't detailed the project.
• 5. Conveniently, Bobrayner would revert the article to Earl King Jr.'s edit twice (equaling King Jr.'s own two times) using King Jr.'s promotional line in the edit summary of "Seems to be far too promotional." If the history/background of an organization or company "seems to be" "promotional," every Apple, Einsten/scientist invention, etc article should be reverted to their earliest, incomplete and unrepresentative edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that Ijon was topic banned from this area due to disruption? You seem to be going to AN over a content dispute. That's not the purpose of AN. Special:Contributions/NotDeletable and this account appearing looks like a potential DUCK. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

1-No, as I'm primarily concerned with article content and good faith edits being disruptively removed. 2-I'd say since his disruptive behavior was brought up in ANI before, that part belongs here, but I'll move this over to disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Our articles around the Venus Project, and Fresco, have historically had severe problems with promotion & spamminess (which has occasionally leaked out into other articles, so some of our articles on economic stuff would have lengthy praise of stuff which is obscure and fringey in the real world). We won't get neutral articles by cherrypicking from sources and then framing it as positively as possible. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that the information is promotional, which I have done, it is best to remove it. When an article sounds spammy or indulgent to some official or party line to an organization or if it reads like it is praising/extolling/glorifying the subject, then it is not credible. The current edit of the article is neutral. Neutrality is key. Since most of the article is dealing with a subject which is self sourced its important to keep the entry neutral. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 WikiCup

Hi, this is just a note to say that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting soon, with signups remaining open throughout January. The WikiCup is an annual competition in which competitors are awarded points for contributions to the encyclopedia, focussing on audited content (such as good articles, featured articles, featured pictures and such) and high importance articles. It is open to new and old Wikipedians and WikiCup participants alike. Even if you don't want to take part, you can sign up to receive the monthly newsletters. Rules can be found here. Any questions can be directed to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing a conspiracy article

So I recently came across this article Samson_Option. Which is basically a conspiracy theory turned into a wikipedia page. The sourcing is awful ... I've made some notes in the talk page, and most of the article needs to be scrubbed.

However it was recently mentioned on Reddit,[here] after someone used his top comment status to start posting crazy conspiracies.

Anyway I messaged some mods who also agreed that it needs to be fixed and we are going to try and work it out. They suggested that I post here to let you all know about it since it has the potential to get controversial.

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing looks pretty good to me, and this isn't a 'conspiracy theory' given that experts on Israel's nuclear weapons have written about the topic. I'm not seeing any need for admins to step in here. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nick ... I'm sorry but you need to look again. I went over every single source and the results are in the talk page. The mods I spoke to originally about this article wanted to delete it entirely. I suggested instead we tag it and let people have the chance to fix it. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Time for semi-protection. People are not even allowing the tag to fix this article to stay up. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I just completed reading the current version. This thread should be moved to the NPOV noticeboard as we are dealing with POV pushing. Some joker has decided to paint the country of Israel as the craziest group of nutcases on the planet by cherry picking quotes and highlighting rumors and innuendo. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerns of severe BLP violations

I have strong reasons to believe an editor is intentionally and maliciously including outright misinformation in article about Japanese video games people, aiming to start and spread false rumours.

The user in question is G-Zay. On his userpage you can see links to a few of his most commonly edited BLPs.

Questions were raised at WP:VG as to the existence of a source he used for claims on Hiroyuki Ito, and it was determined that the claims were at best unsourced, and that the source proposed by the editor was non-existent. It was removed quickly following that discovery.

The user, G-Zay, admits to being a frequent GameFAQs user; one of the usernames he admitted to using is GZay2Stay. You can easily read in this thread he also uses Galvanization as a username. Under the Galvanization username, he explicitely admitted to falsely planting rumours about Hiroyuki Ito by citing made-up sources and watching the "firestorm" evolve from it, even admitting being disappointed by the results.

I believe intentionally introducing deliberate misinformation in a malicious way to BLPs to be extremely severe actions and not only do they possibly expose the WMF to consequences, it harms Wikipedia's reputation throughout the general public, and personally disgusts me immensely. Salvidrim! 14:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It took us a while to find the intended text, but it's there. Please continue to discuss G-Zay's behavior.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/619315-final-fantasy-xiii-2/61390125?page=2 doesn't go anywhere useful.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC) It goes exactly where intended, however there is a lot of irrelevant text -- what you're looking for is this bit, posted under the username Galvanization: "I'm trying to move on with this new account and put my time as GZay2Stay behind me.", hence confirming the identity; a myriad of other users in the same thread also confirm it is the same user but without his own confirmation that carries even less weight. I know it isn't the most rock-solid of proofs, but I believe it is an otherwise evident deduction and even without these off-site admissions, the action on-wiki are still highly concerning. Salvidrim! 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC) That's not on the page in question (I've used Ctrl+F and looked through with my own eyes), and it's not on the previous two pages either. Did you mean to link somewhere in pages 4-16? Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I feel stupid, I just realized that the page numbers depend on the user settings for posts-per-page. From my point of view, there are 4 pages. With default settings it is on page 14. Sorry! Salvidrim! 18:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the link; I would have looked at more pages, but I was short of time. I can easily see the text on that page, but I'm not right now going to comment on the underlying situation. Now for a little more confusion — ?page=14 is actually page 15 of 16. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Yea, not exactly ideal. I amended the link in my post to reflect "default settings" that most editors would likely encounter. Salvidrim! 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• As Salvidrim says, the user appears to be intentionally introducing false information into biographies of living persons articles. I asked the user to participate in the discussion on WT:VG and to provide proof of the interview. The editor has continued editing Final Fantasy related articles but has not responded to any discussion. It worries me that the editor may continue adding made up information to BLPs, and I am concerned that the editor is not responding to discussions. At this point, I think we need to engage in a discussion with the user or else the user must be stopped from editing. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I purposely didn't reply to this discussion as I didn't want to engage in any debate/arguments about my account or actions. I only joined Wikipedia to edit and improve a very select number of pages related to the Final Fantasy series that had incorrect or outdated information.

I will try and explain the matter of the recent edit to the Hiroyuki Ito page. On GameFAQs, I am "notoriously" known to be a big fan of Hiroyuki Ito. This has been the case for years and is what allows other users to identify me if I ever change my username. The reason is because I create passionate threads about Hioyuki Ito possibly directing Final Fantasy XV. There was also a rumour I created in July 2012 about GamesMaster magazine revealing Final Fantasy XV having already been in development for 4 years with Hiroyuki Ito as the director. The rumour spread around the internet but was eventually debunked once the deputy editor of the magazine confirmed the rumour was not published in the magazine. However, my intention making that rumour was not to mislead people, but for the rumour to eventually reach Square Enix so they could publicly debunk it themselves or provide statement about it. After all, many Final Fantasy fans on GameFAQ (and around in the internet) are wondering what Hiroyuki Ito is working on and if he'll be involved in Final Fantasy XV.

Anyway, a few weeks ago, a received a PM on GameFAQs from a user who said they were based in Germany and saw an interview with Hiroyuki Ito in a German magazine called iOS GameZone. They provided me with a translation (but not a scan) and I took their word for it and added it to Wikipedia. However, when I asked them for a scan in a later PM, they replied saying that they made up most of the interview as they knew I was a big Hiroyuki Ito fan and they wanted to get back at me for the rumour I created back in July 2012. Frankly, I wan't even upset about this as I know the Final Fantasy GameFAQs community has me notoriously known as big Hiroyuki Ito fan. The user told me that the interview was real but they exaggerated and modified certain points to build up my hopes. Upon requesting it, they provided me with the actual interview and name of the magazine. They said this was actually true and so I edited the Wikipedia page to reflect this. In other words, my addition to Wikipedia was not made up by me but provided to me by another member of GameFAQs.

Having said that, I hope people are not overlooking my contributions to various Final Fantasy pages and how they are all referenced. It would be a shame if I got banned despite my earnest contributions. Regards. --G-Zay (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for responding to this thread. As a collaborative encyclopedia, it is often useful, and sometimes necessary, to publicly explain one's actions, so please do not hesitate to participate in such discussions. I see two problems with your actions that you must avoid in the future: (1) adding dubiously sourced information to biographies of living persons. This is a serious issue. If you can not confirm the facts in a reliable source, first hand, then I don't think it's appropriate to include such information in a BLP. (2) using questionable sources. You did not confirm that the source existed or that the information you were receiving was actually in the source. When writing citations, it is necessary that you cite where you got the information. For example, if you were reading an article on BBC and it referenced an academic journal article, but you did not actually read the academic journal, then you must cite the BBC article and not the journal article. In this case, you would need to cite the user on GameFAQs as the source for your information. But clearly he is not a reliable source, so the information should not be added to the article. Please review the WP:BLP policy and WP:RS policy, and please be careful when editing sensitive articles such as BLPs. I don't think any further action is necessary. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm also highly relieved to see you reply to this. I didn't want to assume bad faith but the evidence seemed impossible to ignore. I know you've also made great constructive contributions and that doubly worried me as to why you'd go and do this. Thank you for taking this calmly and frankly, not everyone here remains so collected... I'm perfectly willing to lend credence to your explanation and am confident that you've realized why the addition of that information and source was problematic -- nobody's perfect, we're all learning. You've admitted to making stuff up in the past (although not on Wikipedia), perhaps you now realize other GameFAQs users like to play the same game... from now on, make sure to only add reliable sources if you've been able to confirm them yourself. ;) Salvidrim! 20:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Help me explain

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 noticed Jgmikulay was drafting several articles in succession at User:Jgmikulay/WSPA and then copy-pasting each to its respective article. I explained why this was a bad idea at here, yet s/he is still doing this two days later. Please help me re-explain this concept. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify, is Jgmikulay copy pasting any content contributed by editors other them themself? If there are no contributions by other editors being copy pasted the primary reason why copy paste moves are a problem vanishes. Monty₈₄₅ 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary." Is this actually a problem? These are the user's own drafts. The Interior (Talk) 18:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct. My eyes must have glossed over that part. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a "her", by the way; Prof. Mikulay is somebody I've been a Campus Ambassador for, and actually one of our outstanding contributors (specializing in public art, among other topics) and mentors of new editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:24, 31 December 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.

Marcus Qwertyus

Marcus Qwertyus has been going down a list on my User Page and moving articles I've created - some of them years old. Whether or not they should be moved, and understanding there is no ownership on Wikipedia, the fact that he's using any user's sandbox to do this is un-nerving. It started with a page I created this morning. Granted, he may have seen that pop elsewhere. But after that, he's been going down the list on a user's page. And given the conversation above, I think I'm not the only one he's dong this to. It borders on stalking. — Maile (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver actually [15]. I sometimes notice users who have a pattern of mis-titling articles. Is this really something that needs to be dragged out onto AN without first attempting to work something out on my talkpage? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly you dropped a note at Maile's talk page explaining? Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

No, Rich he didn't. And you only have to go through the link to my page above and his user contributions. First he went through the schools, and within categories on that list. I would like him to stop. There must be something else he can do to contribute to Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is as yet no substance to this complaint. Is there anything actually wrong or objectionable about the moves themselves? Please provide diffs. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please remember the message that appears above the edit window on all pages: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Moving a page from your userspace definitely qualifies as doing those things in accordance with our terms and conditions. Granted, it's not particularly courteous in most cases (no comment here, since I've not looked into the details), but if you're fiercely opposed to the idea in general, perhaps you should write them in Notepad and save them on your hard drive rather than writing drafts in userspace. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Not moving pages from userspace but Maile incorrectly thought I was using one of his subpages to get a list of pages s/he had created. The articles in question were already published. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Maile, but not only is it not stalking, it is good practice. There are some types of errors, in this example, title conventions, where the observation of one issue raises the entirely understandable question, "Does this editor have other examples?" If the editor chooses not to follow up, well they are a volunteer, but if they pro-actively decide to check other contributions of the editor to see if there are others needing fixing, that deserves kudos, not brickbats. While this type of activity can cross over into stalking like behavior, that isn't close to what happened here. Instead of complaining, you should be thanking Marcus Qwertyus for the improvements, and, if you don't understand the rationale behind the moves, asks. I'm sure Marcus Qwertyus will be happy to explain.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Long overdue closure

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.

---

This CFD has been sitting open for twenty-four days with a consensus to delete. Why the hell has no one closed it yet? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Those damn CFD closers are slacking on the job again. Dock them all a week's pay. (Seriously, though, we're all volunteers here, maybe bring it to people's attention a little less harshly?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking merely for myself as a regular at cfd, the holidays have distracted me some. Hoping to be a bit more active in the near future : ) - jc37 04:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OMG!! A CfD open for 24 days!!!! It's no wonder I felt the entire structure of Wikipedia shaking earlier today. Let's go, admins, close it up, chop chop - TPH has spoken and you must obey. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rofl. - jc37 07:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A better question is "why the hell do we still allow TPH on Wikipedia with an attitude and lack of situational awareness like this". But BMK has a point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 31 December 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.

Personal attack by User:Sagapane

Main page: WP:ANI § Personal_attack_by_User:Sagapane

Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Julian 'Nitrane' Lane

Can an admin look at the above article at see if it is a G4 of Julian Lane (fighter) deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Lane (fighter). PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the {{db-repost}} even though a non-admin he has no way of knowing if it is or not and as someone who !voted keep at the afd is no impartial anyway. Then the creator Willdawg111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also removed it. Mtking ^(edits) 23:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a straight copy and I have deleted it. I will point out WP:DRV to the editor. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The new pages looks much different from the last as to point out why it passes WP:NMMA. to quote g4 "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly close enough, and certainly should not be re-introduced onto Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin also look at this edit summary I take it as a violation of WP:NPA (what I have come to expect from MMA fans) I think at the least it is appropriate for the edit sum to be removed. Mtking ^(edits) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not bad enough to be removed, but bad enough for an "only warning" for NPA's IMHO (which I did) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And that's the way the cookie crumbles. I am surprised that a lowkey comment like that got flagged. I guess there is always someone spying. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Low key? Showing a bit of remorse/understanding for a significant and almost-blockable personal attack might have been a better choice. Accusing someone of spying is really just the icing on the cake here, as it's yet another WP:NPA. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I SPY with my little eye. A spyglass isn't a tool for spying as the Soviets would define spying. Then there are the EyeSpy books. Spy is a synonym for watch. I think you should dig a little deeper into what words mean. Maybe consult the dictionary first? Then you would see what I mean. Perhaps a little good faith is in order on your end mr admin? I'm sure you would advise me to use 'watch' instead. To that I reply: Could you point me towards the policy that is against ambiguous word usage? I'm also not sure why spying (and not in the way that the information collected is to be used for bad) is inherently negative? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bwilkins, I am hunting for a wet fish to greet you with, so please, wp:Please do not bite the newcomers. Any new, 2-month editor (contribs), especially with an interest in wrestling, can be expected to need a "period of adjustment" to the notion of 10,000 people looking over their shoulder in reading user-talk pages. So, lighten up, wouldya? -Wikid77 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have thought common sense would have been a reasonable definer of how one should use language to interact with others. Spying has negative connotations because of its inherent association with stalking or more precisely hounding. Just my couple of lowest-denomination-currency. Blackmane (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

They do come out of the woodwork for these, don't they? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Some constructive, wild spitballing

Just woke up from a nap to find a good many users I respect (on both sides of the aisle) in a fair amount of trouble. Suffice it to say that there's probably a combined half-million contributions between all the editors who deserve trouts right now. So, something revolutionary occurred to me. I have no idea if this, or anything like it, has ever been suggested, but... why, exactly, does one admin need to be able to block another admin? Hear me out here: If you read through old ArbCom cases or Signpost issues, as I have on many a late night, it seems like a recipe for disaster; what was the last time that one admin blocked another and it ended well?

Now, I know, I know, this seems like the wrong direction to go as allegations of "admin abuse" are ever on the rise - and don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I don't think admins should be "above the law." The thing is, though, blocks of admins can fall into one of two categories: urgent and non-urgent. If there are urgent grounds to block an admin, it's generally appropriate to also emergency-desysop them, either in conjunction with the block, or as a back-up if they self-unblock, depending on the nature of the urgency. Anyways, I don't have a fully-formed proposal here, or anything, but here's the general lines I'm thinking along: There's been a whole lot of wanderlust, so to speak, among the bureaucrats lately; everyone agrees that we need them for something, but no one's sure quite what that is. And at the same time we have yet another dispute involving admins using tools against each other. So why not change the policy to say that only bureaucrats can block admins? 'Crat attention is already needed in any emergency cases (since even if you start out with a block, you need someone to have their finger on the 'desysop' button), and in non-urgent cases, we could simply require some sort of consensus on AN before blocking an admin, which would then be carried out by a 'crat. That way the only way an admin can get blocked is if they're judged to pose a threat to the project, or if there's a consensus to do so - without ever giving the impression that admins are as a rule more trusted or more valuable, but simply acknowledging that pretty much any non-urgent block of an admin will be controversial.

Anyways, if anyone else has any ideas for a general solution to this type of problem, related to my suggestion or not, feel free to post it here. The section title says everything. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one. I think it would be helpful if every single admin at all in any way involved in the debacle of the last two hours or so walk away from whatever device from which they access Wikipedia and think for 15 minutes about how the situation should best be handled and then put their heads together. There are some bright minds in the admin. corps, I have no doubt they'll come up with something more constructive than this current cycle of block, unblock, unconstructive discussion of protocol, hurling insults, repeat. Go Phightins! 00:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

herein lies good natured but off topic harmless banter NE Ent 17:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the majority of the corp is involved and I've been away for a few hours, does that mean I'm left in charge? YAY, just call me Emperor TParis, The Almighty and Dignified, Ruler of the Unruled, and Keeper of the 'Pedia.--v/r - TP 00:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Folks, "corps", not "corp", please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC) When I used to talk highfalutinly about the admin corps, there was always some amusing friend who changed it to "corpse". :-) Bishonen | talk 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC). It's you and Dennis, who's also mysteriously MIA. Go Phightins! 00:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I think Dennis is enjoying this thing....what is it called again....oh...a life. All Hail Emperor TParis ruler of da "pedia".--Amadscientist (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I thought the admin corps couldn't agree on whether there is an admin corps. TP, your highness, please do my work for me; I'm not getting anything done.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Indeed. Tsk-tsk, Sergeant. Also, apparently it's neither corp nor corps, as neither exists... no, I understand Snowolf's point, but can't we just pretend that the admins are one big happy family? <3 — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC) As long as they're happier than the U.S. Congress. Go Phightins! 00:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Now that's really a low blow. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I think it's more like the Taiwan Parliament than anything else! =D KTC (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC) [16][17] That's all I have to say. Go Phightins! 00:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC) More like the ancient Roman senate and the Curia Hostilia. That structure was destroyed when two factions in the Catiline conspiracy faught outside of Rome and caused the death of Publius Clodius Pulcher. They brought his body back to Rome, rioted in the Senate House and used all the senator benches to create a funeral pyre that ignited the Senate house and burned it to the ground. I am seeing a lot of parallels here.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to make one quick comment here and I'm back to my self-imposed one article exile. A lot of people here, and I won't say who specifically, because these people should know who they are, need to calm down. I will be very honest and say that I'm finding cries of "abuse" very upsetting and hard to stomach, and it has nothing to do with my being an admin or who I agree or disagree with. I've been working on an article about someone subjected to actual abuse on a level so horrifying it's quite literally impossible to imagine, and I can't begin to understand how flare-ups that in the grand scheme of things are such minor, trivial problems, are causing so many vicious comments and hurt feelings. Our work together here should be our armor, not some sharp, angry, burning sword. I would strongly recommend that everyone here find an article to work on for a while; not the cliche "random article", but something that gives you a nice tug at the heartstrings. It feels great to be out there doing work on something you genuinely care about, and I assure you it'll help you regain the sense of why you're here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we quote that and put it on top of a page somewhere? Seriously speaking. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to, go ahead; not really sure where it'd fit, but if you find someplace go for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Blade, that's lovely, and it's going on the top of my userpage. Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of some random essay that dealt with the topic (I'm sure there's one somewhere), but the userpage idea is a good one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also precedent of making an essay out of an awesome quote on its own. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Calm down is actually about the worst thing to say to an angry person Exception for individuals with whom you have an existing solid relationship. Please see number 8 of 10 things you shouldn't do when working with an upset customer. (Actually I encourage admins & DR volunteers to read all, except the not applicable #7 & #10). NE Ent 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Back to your original question — look here for an example. I wasn't thinking and violated 3RR, so I was given a routine 24-hour block, which was ended early when I confessed my error and pledged not to repeat. It would be quite problematic if admins weren't allowed or weren't technically capable of issuing a block in such cases. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but was there any reason it couldn't have been discussed at AN or ANI for a bit? The rules could be very strict: An admin would say "Is there any reason that I shouldn't block <admin X> for violating <policy Y>, or that the block shouldn't come from me?" Anyone opposed would then have a burden to show why the admin either didn't violate that policy, or can be rationally exempted from it. So no one would be able to say "You can't block him! He's my favorite admin!" or "Screw you, lay off on the blocks for once." (In fact, if I were to draw up a proposal for this, I'd probably include something allowing summary removal of any irrelevant comments.) I include the "shouldn't come from me" part since, for instance, it's wholly possible that Jclemens could catch Floquenbeam edit-warring (hypothetically of course, Floq), but I think we can all agree it'd be best he left the blocking to someone else. You could even have a rule that if no one replies within 15 (or maybe 30) minutes, the admin who asked can go ahead with the block.

Also, in my original post I was intentionally ambiguous about whether this would be a policy change, or a technical one as well. Now that I've thought about it, I realize that if, say, someone's just deleted the Main Page (oh wait, you can't - ok, deleted all of the most important templates) and blocked Jimbo and all of ArbCom, it's probably best that the first admin who notices be able to block on sight, without having to track down a 'crat, just to buy some time before the big guns swoop in and desysop. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you're trying to reduce tensions, but I firmly believe that this wouldn't be helpful. Even when it's not a blatantly bad faith situation such as Robdurbar, we need to be able to block an admin who's engaging in blockable behavior. We shouldn't block if necessary, but the threat of blocking needs to be actionable. On the technical side, imagine two admins who are actively edit-warring at a minor article despite a warning; do you want them to be able to get way past 3RR just because we can't find a bureaucrat or steward? Meanwhile, if we require discussion beforehand, we're getting far into WP:BURO territory, and (although I can't find a link for it) we'd be making admins and non-admins into two radically different types of users. Finally, you'd have the issue of someone blocking an admin illegally simply because the blocker had no clue that the blockee was an admin. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Admins sometimes need to block other editors to prevent/terminate ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia. That the other editor might have a sysop bit isn't particularly relevant. Bureaucrats have specific, very important roles and we need the most circumspect and prudent editors in the role. They are not super admins but highly trusted editors that tackle deliberative tasks such as closing Rfas. NE Ent 17:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A serious proposal to defuse the Malleus problem

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.

---

Why doesn't everyone just shut their gobs and go and do something more useful right now? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

By "the Malleus problem" I do not mean the facts that he is sometimes uncivil and that the community has not found a way to deal with that.

I mean the much more serious problem of the factions that have formed, the Friends of Malleus and the Enemies of Malleus, and the continual squabbling between them, which is divisive and damaging to the project. The issue comes up at least once a month, and immediately the predictable battle lines form and the atmosphere becomes so toxic that experienced and (normally) respected contributors behave like angry children, as in yesterday's disgraceful explosion. The resulting animosities are liable to spread and poison other areas, as could be seen in the run-up to the Arbcom elections.

My proposal is to invoke WP:IAR and declare that, as an exceptional case, Malleus has attained the status of "vested contributor", that he is exempted from the normal civility rules, and that in future no complaints about incivility from (or to) him will be accepted. This should be a formal announcement, perhaps from the new Arbcom, and any future complaints at ANI or other noticeboards would be speedily closed and the complainer referred to the announcement.

I do not see any downside to this. The situation is exceptional enough that we need not worry about setting a precedent. It would mean that Malleus can be uncivil without fear of sanction, but in practice that is already the case.

The upside is that we will be spared these interminable unproductive arguments and, most importantly, that the warring factions can lay down their arms and go and do something useful and, with luck and time, the animosities already generated will fade away.

JohnCD (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"no complaints about incivility from (or to) him will be accepted" Won't that just mean an escalating war of words across Project space as "factions" war with each other using increasing insults? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody else would be exempt from WP:CIVIL, only MF or people addressing him; what would happen, I hope, is that when he is rude, while somebody might reply in kind, other people would just say "So what" and move on, instead on having a great drama-fest about it. JohnCD (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So, M and his interlocutors can go on and on calling each other whatever all across the Project, and everyone else is forced to pretend they are blissfully unaware? Have you discussed this proposal with him, and how do you make known that we have one special rule for talking to one someone, that is not to exist anywhere else on the project? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The main purpose here is to stop disruptions. There is certainly no end to the problems that are caused everywhere by the issue: This proposal will do good so as to not drag the rest of the community into it. Half of the editors are having a bad taste in the mouth and some are considering even retiring/semi-retiring. And they werent even involved in this originally. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How does it stop disruption? It just perpetuates it. People who never come to this board are going to be involved in this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not directly involved in this discussion. I came only when I realised the huge block-unblock and verbal attacks going simultaneously at various places. Just keep it confined to Malleus's talk page and the pages of those who are involved. We are the 99%. Spare us. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So, you would limit this rule to User talk pages? What if it happens in other article or process forums? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

They face sanctions as usual. We make it clear that this behaviour shall not be acceptable everywhere. Everyone, including Malleus, shall be held accountable for further attacks outside the talk space related to this issue. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Talk pages related to this issue"? User talk pages, is that what you mean? Will the community enforce bans of others from User talk pages, by the User, whose assigned that talk page? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

At this point the following comic looks appropriate - [18]. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, someone shut this one down. The pot has been stirred enough for now. The new year is just around the corner. Doc talk 12:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

John - seriously?! GiantSnowman 12:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. I was afraid people would take this as a joke, or pot-stirring. I am dead serious. How would it be worse than the situation we have now, where dramas like yesterday's are a regular, useless, and divisive occurrence? JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Earnest suggestion - Moderate the words. Do not make it look like Malleus is great and above all, and so we are doing this. Say something like- "Enough already. Due to numerous recent disruptive and disturbing drama incidents on the Wiki, the community has decided not to take any actions regarding the various civility concerns for Malleus. All editors including Malleus shall still be bound to all the other Wikipedia sanctions and the most severe cases of Civility Disruptions and Personal Attacks; but not for the rest." Do not make it look like Malleus is priviledged so he is exempt. Rather that WE DONT CARE. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

John - it completely refuses to deal with the situation - a situation we do, unfortunately, have - and would set a precedent whether you want it to or not. GiantSnowman 12:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The project is not going to openly kow-tow to one editor on civility. If it comes to an epic standoff, he will lose. See the writing on the wall. Doc talk 12:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The project already has. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You know, for as stupid as this idea sounds, it doesn't actually seem half bad. Save the drama, Malleus can have his incivility, and everyone's the better off...except perhaps Malleus, who while now being able to call someone a [insert incivil name of the day] would also be subject to people shooting it right back at him, which could hopefully cause him to refrain from calling editors [insert incivil name of the day]. On the other hand, I can also see a potentially very large downsides, so I'm unsure of what to think of this. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a slipperly slope, and I can see the insults escalating quickly. It's the equivalent of saying "that kid punched you? Punch 'em right back" - we end up with a full blown fist-fight as opposed to the peace we are aiming for. GiantSnowman 12:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Um... Isnt it a fist fight here already? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's the main problem I have with this that I was having trouble putting into words. Other than that, it generally does seem decent. I think on the whole I lean towards that being an insurmountable flaw in this idea, but it's at least not an idea that's worthy of instantly being trashed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like a broken window theory problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

TheOriginalSoni - yes, there is, which is why encouraging both sides to throw more punches is a silly idea. GiantSnowman 13:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Is anything except blocking all the involved users going to stop those fist fights from happening? I doubt it. Will this stop the rest of us from a sour mouth? Certainly. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The basic concept is not without merit. I feel that we have two objectives here, other than our over-riding basic imperative to preserve and to improve the encyclopedia. Objective one is to retain Malleus within the project, which I personally believe would be significantly beneficial. Objective two is to prevent other editors from withdrawing because of uncivility, be it real, perceived or anticipated, from him. both could be achieved if a greater degree of mutual tolerance could be established, poreferably by agreement but by policy if necessary. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't our objectives. Our objectives are, frankly, to provide whatever solution produces the greatest good. The question is ultimately this: does malleus produce more good stuff than he does drama, vitriol and incivility? Do his content contributions outweigh the past, present and future contributions of everyone he could drive away and has driven away from contributing? If the answer to that is "yes", we can all shut up. If the answer to that is "no", he should be banned. The fact that we've got as far as a carte blanche proposal you're legitimately considering is pretty conclusive proof that a "greater degree of mutual tolerance" cannot be established. Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what happened when that (blocking) was tried. As long as half the community is there, Malleus cannot be banned (not by users or admins at least). Ban atleast half of the community, and we might be able to solve the problem. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is this: we're not being asked to say "de-escalate drama". What we're being asked to do is create precedent that for time immemorial, Malleus can be mean to whoever he wants, whenever he wants, to whatever degree - that he can insult people who were never aware of this conversation or quite possibly not even around to participate in it - and that, should they show up, we'll tell them that we don't care enough to actually deal with it. That they have to sit here and be insulted, or leave. That's not de-escalating drama, that's turning future threads from "should we/should we not ban malleus" to "wait, people decided what in 2012?! Are they crazy?"

  At the same time, as suggested above, we'd be setting the precedent that all you have to do is divide the community enough and we'll let you do whatever the hell you want. That's not workable in a collaborative environment. That's not a principle of any project I want to be involved in. This is essentially a proposal to solve short-term drama by pledging to stick your fingers in your ears and sing a happy song when the long-term consequences inevitably crop up. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  But isn't that the status quo already, anyhow? --Conti|✉ 13:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know, it seems to me that we are asked to make the current practice a formal one. I strongly object to it, but I can't say that it's not the current practice. It is the case that Malleus is excluded from compliance with one of the five pillars, so might as well either a) struck that pillar down for everybody or b) formalize the fact that one or more contributors are exempt from following it. I for one feel that we should be just tagging WP:CIV as historical. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis and so should policies. I propose that we don't specifically exempt Malleus from this policy but rather tag the Civility policy as historical, remove it from the 5 pillars and move on. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Then maybe we need to just reach a conclusion on this one way or another. If the current group of participants can't reach a decision on something that impacts on, well, anyone Malleus or any future exempt editor could run into, there's an easy solution: widen out the conversation. Bring more people in. What's stopping us from just doing a straight up/down vote through securepoll: should the civility policy either (a) remain in force and enforceable through the normal plethora of admin and community powers, or (b) be deprecated? Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  The "one pillar" vision is more enchanting to me.[19] Since no community exists, with no mission, and 99.99% of the content is shit. Build it anew on one pillar. The brave words of a fearless leader with a plan to take us into the realm of unbridled excellence! Doc talk 13:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  The "pillar poll" is misunderstanding the root problem, which is that there is no clear answer to the question "What constitutes incivility?" Sure, some incivility is blatant, but many people here cannot distinguish between using rude words and being uncivil (and there are cultural differences too - I get the picture that Americans seem to be far more sensitive to the use of "bad words" than Brits, for example). A much more insidious problem than the use of bad words, in my opinion, is the masses of "polite" incivility that goes on - I've seen someone saying "You'll find my words impeccably polite" while engaging in chronic incivility, for example. And I've seen plenty of occasions when people are uncivil to Malleus but without using "bad words", then he replies no more uncivilly but using "bad words", and he's the one who gets slagged off. Pin down the answer to the question of what constitutes incivility and get a consensus, and then the poll proposition might have a start. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  "I may listen to what you have to say once you've graduated primary school, which you obviously haven't." Of course that is not directed at you, Boing!: just an example of a random response that any editor might make under the new rule. This is gonna be fun! Doc talk 13:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, that's a very good point - in fact, I'd go further and say there is much more subtle incivility than that which seems to be accepted even under the current rules. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I like it, it'll be the Wikipedia's version of the Larry Bird rule. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we can have an "Early Bird rule" too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to polish up your bon mot skillz a bit, as that doesn't even make sense. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

? the "early bird rule" in NBA compensation, which came from the "Larry Bird Rule." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Right now it appears Malleus does not face sanctions for poor behavior. What he does face is drama. Anytime he acts out, the community throws a hissy fit. As sad as that might be, it's still somewhat of a detterant in and of itself. No matter how much Malleus pretends to not care, I can't imagine how much worse it'll become if the community is sanctioned for his behavior instead of himself. No, this is not the solution. As divisive as it is, the community must face this problem until the community is ready to solve it.

Further, I am incredibly concerned with the shift in tactics by the supporters of Malleus. Betweeen "Malleus has attained the status of "vested contributor", that he is exempted from the normal civility rules" from JohnCD and Basalisk's "wikipedia is better off with an insulting and gruff Malleus than without him at all." it scares me because Malleus' supporters are finally accepting that he is uncivil but they still refuse to address it. No no, there can be no agreement until folks on both sides compromise. As Malleus has made it clear he will no, there will be no solution ever. JohnCD - I accept that you made this proposal in good faith, but you only appealed to the interests of a single point of view in this debate. If you want a workable solution, you need to find something both sides can agree too. You have as much luck in that as the US Congress does on a federal budget. You need to compromise, not tell the other side how it's gonna be from now on.--v/r - TP 13:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you suppose we can compromise about? Specifically, one side feels policy trumps Malleus, the other feels Malleus trumps policy. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The lack of solution thus face doesn't mean one doesn't exists, only that either no one has thought of it or the community is not courageous enough to do it. But a one sided solution is not a solution. This will gain zero ground. If we want a "vested contributor" category, then open an RFC and determine who else falls into it. Are you a vested contributor too? Let Jimbo know, he'll likely be one too and I think he might have a few words when we start making people a "big deal." (Oh no, I didn't; yes, I totally did invoke the almighty there)--v/r - TP 13:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• No. What I see is one side thinking that incivility only consists in using "bad words", while the other side thinks there is a chronic problem with "polite incivility" (and then there's the side that thinks X, and the side that thinks Y... it's just not the simple binary question that you seem to think it is) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You speak about hypothetical situations where you say both were uncivil. The handy thing about hypothetical situations is that you don't have to back it up. In the recent incident, do you think Malleus was being uncivil? Yes or No? In the recent incident, do you think Cornellier was being uncivil? yes or no, provide diffs for both, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of real examples, and they have already been discussed at great length in various forums - I'm not going to drag them up again, because the people involved in them have already been subject to enough stress. I'm also not going to comment on the current example, because I have not examined it and because this is not an discussion of that specific case. But I will offer and answer a few questions of my own. 1) Has Malleus ever been uncivil to others? Oh yes, certainly, and I would not seek to deny that. 2) Have others ever been uncivil to Malleus? Most definitely, yes. 3) Have there been occasions when Malleus was the worse offender in an uncivil exchange? Yes. 4) Have there been occasions when someone else was the worse offender in an uncivil exchange? Yes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not going to discuss the current example? It's the current example that is causing the issues; I could see nothing showing Cornellier being uncivil, but perhaps I missed it. I will rephrase the question. Keeping in mind the current incident, have their been incidents where Malleus was the only uncivil person, yes or no? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the usaul admin action for incivility by only one person of this severity? What would your proposed solution be for future cases where only Malleus is being uncivil? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree, see Basalisk comment on this very page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Sure, and the fact that we disagree on what the problem actually is proves that your simplistic statement of it is false. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Or to put it another way, most would consider me a "friend of Malleus", but I do not think that "Malleus trumps policy" - so you are certainly wrong in at least one example. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm no, there's a misunderstanding here. I don't think there's any relevance to terms such as "friend of Malleus" or "enemy of Malleus". I would hope that people try to judge stuff on their merit, not based on friendship. There's obvious differences of opinion in what constitutes incivility: that's natural and understandable. I never meant to imply that you or somebody holding your opinion would be thinking that "Malleus trumps policy", but some clearly do think so. That is the big division. When people talk about net positive, about better having an incivil Malleus than no Malleus, they are saying that he trumps policy in my opinion. That is the big divide. To me, you seem to think that "Policy trumps Malleus" is the way to go, just disagree with me or somebody else that on what constitutes incivility. That seems fine to me, I was trying to outlay a bigger divide that it seems to me has happened in this community. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  OK, yes, I think I'm understanding you better now. I think the two positions you posit do actually exist and that there are people who hold each - and yes, it is divisive. But I also think there's a spectrum of opinion between them - for example, I think a deeper appreciation of the underlying issues should trump a superficial application of policy (which might be a clumsy way of putting it, but it's getting late here), so I think there will be cases were "X trumps policy" and cases where "Policy trumps X", but no generalisations with regard to X. I also think that there are people who think there are more important aspects to the problem which would, if they could be addressed, make the "Malleus vs Policy" question moot. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I should make clear that I do not make this proposal as a "supporter of Malleus". I have had no part in the Malleus civility wars. I make the proposal as someone who thinks that episodes like yesterday's are extremely damaging to the community, and believes this is a way to prevent them. JohnCD (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• JohnCD, probably DOA, don't know its validity, but it does have a certain pragmatic beauty -- effectively letting the air out of the balloon, removing all tension. (I do think your proposal has a mechanical flaw though [if I understand it correctly] since wouldn't it draw like a magnet extra-viscious verbal attacks towards Malleus? Simple fix though ... just don't exempt others from normal CIV when working w/ Malleus. This would put editors "on their own" when interfacing with Malleus, subject to whatever he might say according to his own standards [which, afterall, are considerable; and which, afterall, is the way it should be; and which, afterall, is the way it currently is!].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I felt that exempting Malleus from WP:CIV while requiring others to obey it even when replying to him would be felt too one-sided; if he can dish it out, he should be able to take it. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not "too" one-sided, entirely one-sided.--v/r - TP 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But, I think that is perhaps missing the point ... "Fairness" is always a nice and good value, but this is a case (a proposal) which seeks a pragmatic value (removing tension/drama) as its only justification. (So, if "fairness" is sacrificed, it goes against our feelings of fair-play, granted, but, so what? Does it destroy the pragmatic value sought? No. In fact, it makes the idea possibly workable, whereas without it, it will draw extra-viscious attacks on Malleus, and that makes it not workable.) It could be argued that JohnCD's proposal is itself "unfair", by creating a special case, not accessible to others. The reason JohnCD's idea is radical (thinking "out-of-the-box") is that it goes for its pragmatic result, over instincts for "equal for all", doesn't it? So taken one step further, is not an inconsistency, and, it allows the idea to perhaps work, instead of fail. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"...it will draw extra-viscious attacks on Malleus..." I think that until Malleus is willing to come to terms with his own behavior, that these are essential to curbing his own. The idea fails because it gives Malleus a tool to get rid of editors he dislikes. He can game it by viciously insulting others and then seeking a ban when they retaliate. It raises him on a huge pillar. We already place Raul on a pillar as the director of FAs, and while Raul has been a kind ruler of our best content, I do not think we'll see the same benevolent dictatorship from Malleus.--v/r - TP 15:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so ... Your argument is based on assumption, that Malleus would adapt his behavior to exploit JohnCD's policy. (JohnCD's idea is an exception-policy crafted for the case of Malleus. So it seems consistent then to take what we know about Malleus into account. Your assumption doesn't do that. Malleus has his own standards for his behavior based on his own firm ethics, he goes by his own standards regardless [if policy agrees, fine; if it doesn't, then ...]. Do you honestly think adapting his behavior to exploit a special policy with his name on it would pass his personal ethics standards?! No way!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Plus, no one is forced to work with Malleus. And if Malleus didn't like working with someone, he would tell them (in his own way), and that would be the end of it. So what terrible different future are you worried about? (And indeed, that is how things work today, isn't it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a general comment on the way we handle incivility. I think one of our weaknesses as a community is that we don't properly consider the reasons why an issue leads to incivility - we just address the symptoms of what is often a deeper, but not immediately obvious, problem. As an example, I was recently involved in a spat with another editor who I thought was being uncivil. But here's what I did wrong - I reacted to the perceived incivility, and I failed to think to myself "Hang on, this is someone I respect and actually quite like, so I wonder *why* he is acting in a way I see as uncivil? Maybe there's a misunderstanding here that *I* have contributed to too?" It took a third party to spot that and point it out to me, and once I'd realised that we were indeed involved in a misunderstanding, then it was easy to de-escalate, and we're friendly again. How much of that is there in our big civility bust-ups? I think probably quite a lot. How do we address it? I really have no idea. But that was just a thought. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Civility isn't like NLT or other behavioral issues and really requires digging and discussion to resolve, and not everyone is good at that. Part of the problem is our culture here to quickly fix problems, which works great for most problems, but not incivility. If we have learned anything, it is that blocks are not a cure-all solution for our civility woes and often just make the situation worse. Like you, I have no idea how to fix this problem, and the community has been torn into two over it. I'm personally tired of hearing both sides label the other as "enablers" and "civility police", which is (of course) incivil. And like you say above, the passive-aggressive type of incivility, thinly veiled with sweet words, is more destructive than the blunt comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "If we have learned anything, it is that blocks are not a cure-all solution for our civility woes and often just make the situation worse." Have we learned that? How? As one has never stuck and been allowed to have any result, I don't think we know if they are effective or not on Malleus. Here's a counter proposal to JohnCD, let's block Malleus for 1 month and see if it fixes the problem.--v/r - TP 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed - MF should be treated like any other editor who is uncivil - a series of escalating blocks ending in an indef. GiantSnowman 15:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
        • That doesn't work. Look at the record. The situation has become too polarised. If anyone blocks him for a month, there will be another immense drama, with threats of resignation and attacks on the blocker, and someone will unblock him within 20 minutes. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
          • What record? The record of it being overturned? We do not have a single block on Malleus to point to and say "Ok, we gave that a chance and it didn't work."--v/r - TP 15:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think some people around here just need to accept that what goes on behind-the-scenes here (keep in mind how small the # is of Wikipedia users who dive into article talk pages, and smaller still who get into our Byzantine bullshit like ANI and Arbcom) is more Wild West than a Victorian-era ladies' tea social. You will never get anonymous people to be polite to eahc other when there is no compelling reason to do so, and no actual enforceable repercussion when they do not. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• True enough. There's no compelling reason for me, in RL, to hold the door open for an old lady walking into a public place. She's just some anonymous person! She'd probably shut the door in my face too. I like the way this is going. Doc talk 14:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous Seriously, this might be the most absurd proposal I've seen since I joined the project. The notion that allowing Malleus unlimited incivility is flawed. How on earth does anyone expect to retain new (or old) editors who face incivility from Malleus and are told that the community decided he could do whatever he wanted. If people don't want to deal with the drama, don't take part in the discussions. If a Malleus issue comes up and you work somewhere else on the encyclopedia, as far as you are concerned, drama never occurred. I'd hate the following idea, but if allowing incivility is the only option, then it would need to occur by getting rid of the fourth pillar for all editors. This includes new accounts and IP editors. Ryan Vesey 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Ryan, it seems to me you're reacting emotionally to the idea, rather than evaluating it objectively. (Look at how you name-call it in the first two sentences. That's evidence of emotionalism, not argument.) First, think if the rule were implemented, and a newbie went to Malleus for help with something. Would Malleus's behavior toward the newbie be any different because the rule was implemented? Not at all. So then, what case are you worried about? (Cases where Malleus has told someone where to go? Well, that is what happens today already. So what unforseen undesirable future are you worried about then, that I didn't cover?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, we already do allow him unlimited incivility. The last three times he was blocked, it took 16, 5 and 7 minutes before someone unblocked him. The question is, do we continue interminable wrangling about the situation, or do we formalise it and move on? JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I assumed the proposal wasn't literal, although not completely sure of the goal, to be honest. I don't think we have the authority to do that anyway, even as a community, unless we changed the five pillars to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The civility policy is a community-approved policy and we do have the authority to change it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • • Probably, but only within the bounds of the Wikimedia:Terms of Use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The proposal was literal. I wish I could convince people of that. It is calling in the fifth pillar, IAR, to resolve a problem with the fourth. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • But I don't think we have the authority to exclude ONE person from it, that was my point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Then consider it a category of persons, a category that consists of one member. (As soon as he's cloned, there will be two.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
          • The last time people tried to create a category of Wikipedians that aren't Wikipedians (several times) it kept getting deleted, even though there were several people in that category. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Huh? (JohnCD's proposal is a special-handling rule for a Wikipedian, no one suggested anything about "non-Wikipedian".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So 39 FAs is the magic number? Well then hmm, it's a good thing that I write road articles, because I can get 39 FAs too - I already have 2, and have come up with 3 potential candidates in the span of three months. I want my exemption! --Rschen7754 15:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the number of FAs is fairly irrelevant. If YellowMonkey showed up out of the blue and started being uncivil, I doubt you'd get the same reaction from people and he'd have to face the music. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Sounds discriminatory towards Rschen, myself, and other content contributors. Just slip the exemption to us quietly. We won't say anything. Well, not about that anyway.Wehwalt--15:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Let me try and help you all out here. That Ironholds went blocking bonkers yesterday is nothing to do with me, and whatever is decided here (likely nothing at all, as is the Wikipedia way) will make absolutely zero difference to me. And a final piece of advice; stop treating your contributors like naughty children. Nobody gives a rat's arse about all this blocking/banning nonsense. Just look at the recent examples of Rlevse or Jack Merridew if you believe blocks solve anything. Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere (structural change)! (@JohnCD, how much *more* fuss/drama/time/disruption would be saved, if there were *no* deliberations/cases about blocks, if blocks were eliminated? Answer: lots & lots.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ridiculous proposal. No amount of content contribution should give any user a free pass on behaviour. I've opposed such nonsense with Jack Merridew, A Nobody, Colonel Warden, and now Malleus Fatuorum. When considering behaviour, the only thing that should be considered is the behaviour, and content contribution should be considered only when the topic is content. I'd rather see people discussing severe sanctions for admins that undo valid blocks based on personal whim. Floquenbeam's unblock spree yesterday was the source of the difficulty. If SnottyWong, Drmies, and Malleus Fatuorum had each served out the terms of their blocks, we'd be in a better place today. At the very least it would be a consistent place that stood a chance as being perceived as fair.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Someone said the new Arbcom has a profile that is less poised to support such blocks, so, what straw are you sucking from thinking more blocking has any realistic chance of being more than wishful thinking on your part to address the problem JohnCD has described? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Occasionally the community reaches the correct decision despite Arbcom. It's not so common that I would bet in favor of it, but it has happened in the past, and likely will again.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The person who wrote what I read about the new Arbcom profile, felt the new Arbcom accurately reflected the voice of the community on issue of civility enforcement (recent Arbcom election). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• This proposal is a troll, right? It has to be. I can't believe that someone would seriously propose going directly against the principle of 'no vested contributors' and creating a user with rights even Jimbo doesn't have - the right not to be blocked for incivility. The day that happens is the day I quit Wikipedia, since it'll be the day we formally accept that not all editors are treated equally. A better proposal would be to outright abolish WP:Civility - I don't agree with that proposal, mind you, but it would be fairer than proposing to exempt one editor from it while everyone else remains subject to it. Robofish (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's clear to I think everyone here except you that JohnCD is serious/sincere in his proposal, so to suggest his proposal is a troll makes it look more like your comment is a troll (or did I miss something with that logic?). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. Your "abolish CIV" idea has some attractive logic, IMO. (Could you please ask Malleus what he thinks of it? He's a pretty smart guy, yes?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Counter Proposal

Taking this "vested contributor" idea a step forward, can we decide on a bright line where an editor becomes a vested contributor and then once we have such a bright line: The blocking of a vested contributor may not be done unilaterally by a single administrator, it must have X hours of discussion in an appropriate forum. This will address the concern that there are underlying issues that are unresolved with blocks, because they will be discussed first, and it'll also address the issue of administrators unilaterally unblocking because they'd go against community consensus. Further, blocking would not be off the table but it'd be left to community discretion. Alright, I'm ready for unanimous opposition: GO!--v/r - TP 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a bad idea in theory, however, a determination of how vested is vested is unachievable. We don't use a set of metrics at RFA for a reason, and a metric to determine when they can skirt being a dick isn't going to happen. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal

I like out of the box thinking. While I don't think the original proposal will fly, let me suggest two modifications which may make it more palatable:

1. Identifying a specific individual is problematic. I suggest that the term "ValuedVested contributor" be applied to anyone who has over 75,000 edits to article space and has contributed in more than 100 FA nominations.
2. Rather than just ignore incivility by a "ValuedVested Contributor, anyone seeing it (except on the VC's talk page) should simply remove it with an edit summary "removed remark of VC".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that more palatable? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The threshold is way too high. Really, it would be a good idea if most blocks were discussed first. The threshold should be high enough that a new contributor has been given plenty of rope to develop into a problem editor and be blocked, and to make it as hard as practical for anyone to make a super sock, but not so high that it only applies to one editor, or a handful of editors. I would consider 2000 edits and a year of activity as a more appropriate threshold. There are probably some block reasons that should be excepted, such as bright line 3rr violations. Monty₈₄₅ 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And the name "Valued contributor" sucks; it implies other contributors might not be valued. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It may be me, but i start to smell Citizendium here - As long as you have some "Qualifications" you may do as you please but otherwise you are expected to obey the rules and god help you if you don't. If we are going to have a set of rules they should apply to everyone, without exempting people who just happened to be around somewhat longer, regardless how valued they might be. I don't mind giving extra leeway to long term editors since a nudge can often work wonders, but if people consistently go over the line i don't see why that should be accepted. So either enforce this line, redraw it somewhere else of remove it altogether. I don't care which, but the line should be equal for everyone. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is more palatable in that it avoids singling out one editor. Anyone can qualify, it just takes a lot of valuable contributions.
  
• It is more palatable, because it doesn't declare that incivility has to be left and ignored, it allows removal. It simply avoids the useless drama associated with blocks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Third Alternative

Call this the "Don't be a productive dick" sanction. Contributors valued for their content despite habitual incivility are placed under the following regime:

1. Any verbal abuse directed at other editors will be subject to a 5-day block, without consideration to the contributions or any past abuses that have not been sanctioned (the Don't be a productive dick clause)
2. If the abuse was caused by baiting, broadly construed, the baiting party will be blocked for 10 days. This includes misuse of processes for vexatious or disruptive litigation (the Don't poke the bear clause)
3. If the block for verbal abuse is deemed illegitimate, the reporting party or blocking admin will be blocked for 5 days (the don't be trigger happy clause)
4. All above blocks are treated as an AE block and cannot be overturned absent an overwhelming community consensus. Admins ignoring this provision will be blocked for 10 days and subjected to desysopping proceedings if they persist. (The don't unblock without consensus clause)
5. Once the discussion of the specific incident triggering the first block is closed, any reopening of it on any forum (including Jimbo's talk) will be subject to a 10-day block (the stop stirring up drama clause).
6. Any gaming of this sanction regime will lead to a minimum 6-months ban.

Instead of placing an arbitrary number of edits as the threshold, a simple consensus on AN is enough to place any editor under this regime. None of the above precludes any actions for disruption caused outside of WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA. What does this regime offer? It stops the immunity from sanctions for productive editors who regularly flare up, while providing a path to keeping their contributions. It cuts short on the drama and prevents the unblock and noticeboard drama. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, you aren't conjugating irregular verbs properly. It's "I am honest, you are baiting, he is disruptive." Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we should not hand out blocks as if it were. Gaming is an incredibly broad concept, and almost anything could be counted as gaming because gaming, if done at all well, looks almost identical to normal editing. Likewise, all sorts of perfectly legitimate things could also be baiting depending on the motivation of the person making the edit. Monty₈₄₅ 16:35, 30 December 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.

Similar proposals have been made before, though not necessarily in relation to the same editor. Linking to them from here should make it easier to find them the next time a similar proposal is made. I am aware of two:

• WP:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop#(Dec 2006) A Modest Proposal
• WT:Blocking policy/Archive 15#Giano section

Hans Adler 08:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Stirring the pot. Especially if they are not "in relation" to the same editor (and bringing it up in a closed thread). Cool. Cheers. Doc talk 08:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WOLfan112 unblock 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.

---

Initial discussions

Per UTRS #5662, WOLfan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is requesting unblock via WP:OFFER. I have reconfigured his block to allow him to edit his talk page as well as this page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WOLfan112/Archive and a good memory convinces me this would be a bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Dennis. Also, only four months have passed. Let's see what WOLfan112 has to say. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Standard offer is 6 months w/o socking. Not 6 months since the block and 4 months of no socking.--v/r - TP 19:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry for my previous behaviour. I promise I will not do it again - I am also very sorry for making all those sock puppets. During the past few months I have learnt to act formally, control my emotions and to not lose my temper. I also believe my spelling and grammar has improved significantly. It is a new year, so what not give a last chance as a final act of good faith? UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on here, what? How is the editor unblocked to edit here? As per SOP, they may ONLY edit their talkpage, use {{helpme}} to have it copied over here to AN ... there's no way in heck they should be editing anything like AN directly. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Purely answering the how: Special:AbuseFilter/201. KTC (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Cute idea, but not how we do things. He's now got full access to everything else on this page too; not kosher (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was allowed to edit this page. Sorry, I didn't know.UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

For users who haven't been known to abuse noticeboards, I don't consider it a problem for him to have access to the entire page, with the understanding that he is not allowed to edit other sections. My policy is that if you try to abuse this privilege, then you get immediately reblocked and your appeal dismissed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering the abuse he has put into this page, I'll hope we don't do it again. He probably shot himself in the foot with his constant edits. Being forced to think carefully about his input, then requesting it be copy/pasted probably would have done him a world of good, AND given us the warm fuzzies that he knows how to censor his stream of consciousness (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"I have reconfigured his block to allow him to edit his talk page as well as this page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)". It says "as well as this page". So could you please consider my unblock request and give me a last chance?--UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The "heartfelt apology" followed by repeated and continuous socking is something that has happened over and over again. Why would this time be any different? I feel that an unblock at this time, or any time within the next three years, would waste a significant amount of volunteer time and provide absolutely no benefit to the project. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Um... A question here. Have any of these disruptive behaviour occured "AFTER" any single heart-felt apology from him? Or was he never re-considered once he was blocked? Your links seemed to be dubious in that ground, so I thought I would ask. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The repeated sockpuppetry occurred several times after these "apologies". -- Mrmatiko (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Mind me asking for some links before I believe that? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the rest of this page. He/She already gave the links above. Compare that with the times where socks in the SPI archive operated. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The more salient question in my mind is, "What are you planning on doing should you get unblocked?" I and others (notably User:Moe Epsilon) discussed this with WOLFan112 yesterday on IRC, in the help channel. One of the things you discussed there was the deletion of all your contributions. As I recall, this is something you got into trouble about before, as well. Do you accept that, even if you are unblocked, you will not have free rein to delete all your previous contributions? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I will delete any of my previous articles, pages or useful edits. I accept I do not own wikipedia.UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This time I have had a long time to reflect. 4 months is 120 days and in the past I often had over 30 useful edits a day. I believe I have changed and proved I can keep away from WP for over 100 days if I wanted to.UserWOLfan112 Talk 20:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you missing a word in your reply or did you misunderstand Writ Keeper? Salvidrim! 21:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I ask this because the incident involving you (or in this case, User:Deathlasersonline, one of your socks) that sticks the most in my mind is this one, and especially this page (quickly deleted), which you created after your deletion requests were denied. Since you asked yesterday about deleting all your contribs because your friends would find out about them (paraphrase), the same exact issue and rationale that caused the prior incident, I'm thinking this may still be an issue for you. This kind of conduct on your part was outrageously unacceptable, and I'm not sure you're quite over it yet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• WOLfan112 has not met condition 1 of the standard offer, i.e. no sockpuppetry for six months, but there was confirmed sockpuppetry going on just four months ago. WOLfan112 has been warned that repeatedly requesting to be unblocked before the six months was up would not reflect favorably on any future unblock requests, and I'm afraid that this request demonstrates that maturity is still an issue. This request should be declined and the user should be reblocked at once. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• WOLfan112 and his socks have caused a lot of work for other editors and abused our assumption of good faith. As the thread Writ Keeper links above shows, there has also been an extreme display of childishness. What besides "aw come on, it's a new year" do you have to convince us to unblock two months before "standard offer" would apply, let alone the solid year that I believe many of us recommended you take before attempting to return? Do you have, for instance, a solid record of editing constructively on another Wikipedia to which you can point? Unless something really compelling is presented, my answer must be no. LadyofShalott 02:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock per WP:ROPE. I'm not one for calendar watching, and I feel the spirit of WP:SO has been met here. Blocks are cheap and easy, especially for someone with a history like this. --Jayron32 04:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock per Jayron32, with the understanding that if he screws up, he will have a much harder time persuading next time.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock First, they have not met neither the letter nor the spirit of WP:OFFER - especially as they were specifically and intentionally advised NOT to request unblock before 6 months after their most recent socking. Second, they say their intent if permitted back onto Wikipedia is to delete all of their work - um, you licensed it to the project to do with it what it may, so that might not be a good idea. Overall I'm not convinced by what I'm reading of any sincerity in understanding their block, nor that this editor is going to be any better in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock - I do not see why the user ought not to get a second chance. 4 months is long enough already; and even if her reneges, no harm will be done (As already explained by other users) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  This wouldn't be a "second" chance, it goes quite a way beyond that.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock Lack of actual indications that they have changed, too many "second chances" (per the messages and Mrmatiko's diffs). Insufficient time has past for the standard offer. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

While we are considering an unblock based on socking, would WOLfan112 voluntarily submit to having a checkuser run for sleepers? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If they haven't been used to edit in three months, there will be no data. Or is this just to see if he'd object? Look, we are told to AGF. An editor has returned after a fair period of time (and the "six months" did not come down on stone tablets or golden plates) and he's being very polite. A block is not difficult to impose. Let's get on with building the encyclopedia and see if he's with us or against us on the only issue that counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

AGF? Too late for him. You don't actually know if he's had a break for 3 months (he was caught at the end of august socking), and there is no reasonable expectation that he has considering the mass of sock-puppetry and "apologies" that have occurred again and again. There's assuming good faith, and then there's having the cop on to deal with a situation where someone abuses that continually. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, pending meaningful and substantive responses to LadyofShalott's remarks. This unblock request doesn't evince any clear notion or plan for what WOLfan112 would do – or would like to do – on this project if unblocked, nor any work on other projects to demonstrate a remarkable increase in his editing skills. In other words, this request has plenty of I'm tired of waiting and I want to play on Wikipedia but is lacking in I've thought about the problem, and here's how I will help to build an encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I lost my temper, it will not happen again. And I will not delete any more articles - I now understand articles I write don't belong to me, they belong to enwp. I truely believe I have changed. As for my socks, they were a reapeted attempt to become a constructive wikipedia editor, which I now realize I shouldn't have made.UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock too many second chances already, no indication this user's presence would be a net gain for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  I am not asking for a second chance, I am asking for a last chance - with certain restrictions if necessary. Or maybe I can be unblocked on a trial period with lots of restrictions?UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. There's no evidence here that WOLfan112 has made any actual changes in his approach. He's been "very sorry" many times, and promised to behave many times. He usually even tries to do so, but his impulse control is not up to the task, and generally that ends in the disruption worsening when he doesn't get his way. To support unblock, I would need to see more than the "right" words being strung into a sentence - I'd need to see actual behavior that indicated he believed and understood the words. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Oppose unblock. Last chance, and easy to reblock if necessary. To those who want to see a change in behaviour, well we can't if we won't let him back, can we? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.UserWOLfan112 Talk 16:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You just blew it by trying to edit another article page while only allowed to edit your talk page and this discussion (you got caught in the edit filter - see below). And the continued impatient badgering in the "Further discussions?" section below shows that the necessary maturity is not here yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to tell, that "edit" was just a moodbar comment. Please dont tell me that a blocked user no more has any right to show that he is happy, or sad. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A blocked editor does not have a right to edit anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And how is a "moodbar comment" an edit? (Honestly, this is the first time I even came to know that its an edit.) I dont think at all that this 'edit' must be considered against him. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I understand the Moodbar a bit better now, and I realise it wasn't an explicit edit and it should not be held against WOLfan112 - so I have struck that. But I'm still concerned by WOLfan112's impatience and immaturity, as demonstrated below, and by further comments made by others. I would support an unblock at the appropriate time, but I don't think that time is now. I think that an unblock now stands a good chance of leading to a further block from which it might be impossible to come back, whereas I think a bit more time away first would greatly improve the chances of an unblock being successful. Writ Keeper puts it better than I can in the "Further discussions?" section, just below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock, a bit of rope can do wonders. Max Semenik (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Small point Why would I make anymore socks if they just get blocked again. No I have not made any more socks. To be honest, sockpuppetry is very energy sapping and highly unrewarding. It has no benefits, none-at-all. You will need excellent acting skills and exghausting amounts of planning. All of which, is just not worth it. Sockpuppetry makes home-work seem like a dream-world, just to make a comparison. It is not like waving a magic wand!UserWOLfan112 Talk 16:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Wolfs problem has always been that he simply does not have the level of maturity required to constructively edit Wikipedia, and I see nothing to suggest this has changed. This is is not a case of "unblock him and if he vandalises again reblock him", because wolf doesn't vandalise, he attempts to make constructive edits which are generally not, requiring other editors to go around cleaning up after. Until Wolf can demonstrate that he has matured enough to be able to edit successfully I see no reason to unblock--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Question 1 - So you wish to be blocking him only because he isnt mature? If he is not mature, then send him through adoption programmes, not block him!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have confused my meaning, his lack of maturity means that he is unaware that he is editing destructively rather than constructively. He would need to demonstrate that he is mature enough to deal with the responsibilties and stresses that editing Wikipedia entails. You can mentor as much as your like (and btw WOLfan has gone though mentorship programs before to no avail), if he is not mature enough to handle it it will achieve nothing. And re your comment above, WOLfan was not attempting to edit a wikipedia moodbar, he was attempting to add an inappropriate comment to a Wikipedia article called Moodbar only to have it denied by the editfilter, if there was no filter it would have gone through--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was a moodbar comment feedback thing (whatever the techie term is) based on the Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext) being null and then the New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) having something in it. It just so happened that the moodbar response he did was on the page Moodbar. I also base my opinion that this was a moodbar comment on the fact that some other lines have null values, including old_size, action, and old_html among others. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I was mistaken. Does this mean that it was in fact a legimate use of the moodbar, and a further demonstration of his readiness to rejoin the project? Not from where I'm standing--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Special:AbuseLog/8018831 is just further evidence--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - The comments here at AN remind me too much of his comments back on his talk page, when he was constantly being warned and blocked. - I don't think he's ready still. (Especially when "What's the worst that could happen?" or "Socking is hard work - too hard to keep up!" type rationales are being given.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course he will remind you of his comments back then! Its not that he has got someone else to edit on his behalf. And your rationale for Opposing is because Support has some weak arguments?This comes from a side where "Immaturity" is a reason for blocking. Sigh Are you sure you have read the strongest of the statements? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's break it down. I looked at what he's said here. I looked at some of the past things he's said. Using that, I came to the conclusion that I don't believe him when he says he's changed. He's got a history of losing his cool when arguing with others, and he looks like he's on the verge of that in these very discussions, and he's not even unblocked yet. Why does that not seem legitimate to you? Perhaps you can give me a reason to believe him? He certainly hasn't inspired confidence... Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock per attempted (inappropriate) edit in article space edit action while unblock discussion is ongoing when user was unblocked solely for the purpose of commenting on the unblock request. General behaviour shown during this unblock request also lead me to think that more time is probably needed. KTC (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  With all due respect, that wasn't an article edit attempt, it was a WP:MOODBAR comment. Max Semenik (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  Stricken and expanded. KTC (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. I expect a minimum of 6 months without sockpuppetry or other issues, to show that the user is not obsessed with Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I here announce my intention to train user WOLfan to get to understand Wikipedia policies, and get him to try and edit constructively and maturely. Wolf, do you agree to try and understand all of wikipedia's policies, and try editing only when you have got a basic understanding of most wikipedia policies? And will you try to be a constructive editor to Wikipedia? If this proposal is accepted, I shall personally review each one of his edits, and make sure that Wolf understands the problems and merits of each one of them. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To all editors - I remember my own "new editor" days here, and I remember how confusing it was. From Wolf's POV; here's what the scenario is, IMO-

1. He did not understand all of wikipedia's policies were; and neither did he understand what those "warnings" meant.
2. He tried to start afresh with a different account, but then comes to know its a "grave crime" on wiki.
3. When blocked, he tries to get himself unblocked. Instead, the admins reviewing demand for an "essay" on what he will do when he is unblocked. He cant make that essay, and remains blocked.
4. Unaware of what badgering and being pushy is, he desparately tries to be unblocked. Instead, his case becomes worse and worse.

None of these things are crimes. Just simple misunderstandings and mistakes. Immaturity is no crime. Never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity. Should he be given another free chance? I believe so. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a significant understatement of how things went down. For starters, WOLfan112 has created many more socks than just one. He's had multiple warnings and "last" chances. He's thrown some very childish (and potentially quite disruptive) tantrums on-wiki about frivolous things. I'm not opposed to his coming back productively (especially if he gives it a good amount of time between now and another appeal), and a good bit of what he's done can be chalked up to unfamiliarity with the rules, but let's not sugarcoat things: it definitely goes beyond simple misunderstandings. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My point here is that nothing that he did is a grave crime enough to have him kept blocked. Some misunderstandings, and a fair amount of immaturity. Does that mean he should be blocked from editing? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am became incredebly fustrated at that time, I kept misunderstanding wikipedia as form of lawsuit. I thought I was not being given a fair hearing. Also, other editors telling me on IRC that if I make more socks I will be sued by some old "computer misuse" laws (Which have been long abandoned, appearently). Only made things more fustrating!UserWOLfan112 Talk 21:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the exchange that Dennis linked to below sums up the reason that many of us oppose the unblocking of WOLfan112, with several people (including myself) suggesting a longer "clean" period than 6 months. WOLfan112 has claimed in the past to be significantly younger than the age of majority in any country, and their interactions on this website suggest that they don't have the maturity to take on board constructive criticism, something which is essential in a collaborative environment. Mentoring cannot work with somebody who flies off the handle whenever a single action is criticised, especially when such mentoring is being offered by somebody with so little experience with mentoring any, let alone difficult, Wikipedians. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to find a nice what of what you said at the end there myself: based off of a lot of what's going on at User:TheOriginalSoni's talk page, I'm not sure he's ready to be mentoring yet anyways. (There's a lot of recent comments comments regarding warnings of policy, deletion notices, and recently being a protege himself...) Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Please do not drag experience into this. Unless you have been through my edits and interactions with other users, I do not think you have got the right to question my ability to mentor. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, sub-descussions will only make things even more complex. Anyway, only a very small proportion of his edits are unintentionally unconstructive. It's much better than the mejority of highly active users. He is the perfect person for mentoring.UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, TheOriginalSoni, if mentorship is being proposed as a possible solution in a community discussion, then the suitability of the proposed mentor is a valid issue for consideration. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Mentoring Is there anybody left who is prepared to mentor me?UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A those extra sections were because I like organised structures, not big blocks of text. It makes them very hard to interpret.UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Civility definitions Parhaps you could give me a definition of just how polite you want me to be. I have not sworn, I have not used all caps. And as for asking for a decision, my mistake. But at the end of the day, this is wasting time, delaying wikipedia's progress. I am a reader, I know how fustrating it is to find an unattended article or a stub. User:TheOriginalSoni, I accept your mentor request, you understand me.UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not a "civility" thing at all, it's an impatience thing - if you continue to show impatience the way you are doing then it is less likely to go your way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And according to this, TheOriginalSoni has retired and may be back sometime after April/May, so it looks like that mentorship offer is no longer an option. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What I will do to build enwp if I am unblocked

• Wikify articles
• No more vandalism reverting
• No more competition
• Suggest improvements on talk pages, without replying to avoid argument
• Add sources
• No countroversy
• No new articles in the next month, make stubs after that and keep improving them. Don't move on until it is GA class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Add wikilinks.UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Further discussions?

Noting so that replies below don't look like nonsequiturs: This section was originally titled "Decision?" and the original comment was a demand from WOLfan112 for an immediate decision. He has since deleted the demand and retitled the section. LadyofShalott 17:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest being patient - if you try to rush it, you'll risk turning people against you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The majority are already against me, this is probably my fault :( UserWOLfan112 Talk 16:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Boing that pushing people is not useful or helpful. Irritating people is really not to your benefit.

As for "other websites", you could (assuming you are not already in the same sort of trouble there) edit at Simple English WP. Iff (if and only if) you are fluent in another language, you could work at that language Wikipedia. As I said in my comments above, seeing a solid record of positive editing without problems at any other version of Wikipedia would go a long way towards convincing me that your editing here would be productive. I suspect that goes for many others as well.

Regarding some of your other remarks, GA is certainly a laudable goal, but I don't think an article must have hit that mark to have merit. (That's not to dissuade you from working towards it on any article should you be allowed to return.) LadyofShalott 17:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Then please tell me, what is the worst that can happen. Tell me one action that can happen which cannot be undone or deleted. Don't change the subject, just reply to this. Also, don't speak to me like a minor, speak to me like you would to any other person. We were all kids once!UserWOLfan112 Talk 17:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the worst case scenario for you will be that your unblock can be indeffed, making you permanently unable to edit wikipedia for life. Nothing else can match that. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

AN/ANI discussions are open for at least 24hrs to gain consensus. The fact that you're requesting unblock quicker than the 6 months AND you're now pressing for a fast resolution tells me a lot ... I'm now a bigger "no". By requesting earlier, you usually re-set the clock for a brand-new 6 months (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the worst that can happen?UserWOLfan112 Talk 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this the behavior of a user who we believe has calmed down enough to be a constructive editor? He already seems to be worked up, and he's not even back yet... Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That question will not be answered on the basis of WP:BEANS. Your demonstration of continued immaturity leads me to say unequivocally oppose unblocking. LadyofShalott 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest, I (and possibly most of us) more worried about the negative effects on you than on the rest of Wikipedia. As you rightly say, damage to Wikipedia can be repaired. My concern is this: I think that you could be a really good editor one day, but (please don't be offended) I think you have a bit of a maturity problem right now, and I'm not sure you've grown out of it yet. I'm worried that, if we unblock you too early, you might lose control of your temper and get reblocked in a way that will never let you come back, either because we won't be willing to unblock you or because you'll be too angry at us to try coming back. These things take time. That's why Lady (and others) are suggesting you work for a while at another project; if you can work elsewhere without running into problems, then we know you've overcome it, and we'd be glad to let you back in. I don't think any of us are doubting your good faith. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just realised my USERNAME is in a slight violation of username policy. WOLfan does not mean 'wolf' it means War Of Legend fan 112. I just read up on username policy and although this may not be promotional to most people. Many gamers will know what WOL means.UserWOLfan112 Talk 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that's fine. Not a problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The username is fine. The problem is the behavior that led to the block, which was often impulsive. Asking to get unblocked so soon after August, particularly when several of us have a very vivid memory of the problems you caused, is also impulsive. I'm not opposed to you coming back some day, but I've very opposed to that being now, or in a couple of months. I don't feel like dragging up diffs right now (except this one[20]) since the outcome is pretty obvious, but you were a royal pain to the community, and manipulative in more than one way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, let's carry on this discussion for the full 7 days to reach a full conclusion. And so that everyone's views are expressed. We don't want anybody being left out (even if they are against my unblocking).UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got the idea that this has to go on for 7 days, but there is no fixed minimum time required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I no longer want an unblock, I will never edit again even when I am older. I am making that my new commitment - never ever edit wikipedia again!— Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talk • contribs)

Well that is an unfortunate, but unsurprising, response. I think that means it's time to remove WOL's access to edit this page again. (I know nothing of edit filters; someone else please do the honors.) LadyofShalott 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Holy WP:DIVA, Batman. Something about spiderman and some tower too. Thank you for proving us right - that's the most immature and impulsive response you could have ever made - and those are very things you're trying to prove don't exist anymore. Well done. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Well, with that, I've restored the block. WOLfan112: You're clearly enthusiastic about editing here, so I do hope that you return some day - just don't do it as a block-evading sock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:39, 1 January 2013 (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.

request help centering a table

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.

---

Could someone please center (with respect to the page) the two molecule strip divved tables in Fluorine? See these sections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#Pharmaceuticals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#Organic

Sorry about disturbing the important work here, but I tried Help Desk hours ago and the drama boards seem to have more watchers than the content boards. ;-)

Sirs, admins.

TCO (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done No comment about the "important work"... =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly.TCO (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2013 (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.

Topic ban

Could an administrator please close WP:ANI#Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing, which is a request for a topic ban. TFD (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

N. R. Narayana Murthy topic ban

Moved from WP:ANEW

 – With some minor modifications. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: N. R. Narayana Murthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User: Tib42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 09:31, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "restored (constant disruptive behavior)")
2. 04:34, 25 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529644837 by Rtat (talk)")
3. 06:04, 25 December 2012 (edit summary: "do not change the top para since it was there from the very beginning")
4. 05:42, 26 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529722850 by Tib42 (talk)")

Comments:
This is not a breach of 3RR but a battle that goes back further than the above diffs. I am involved. The main content dispute is over which awards to list in the article. User:Tib42 wishes to list more awards, and other editors, including Kkm010, wish to list fewer. It goes back a long ways. I've been involved in it (although no longer directly). User:Dennis Brown tried to mediate it. The last person who tried was User:Ryan Vesey. I left a message a couple of days ago on poor Ryan's talk page (it's a thankless job) to see if he has the time and is willing to get back into it; I don't think he's around right now. Meanwhile, Tib42 persists, and Kkm010's knee-jerk reaction is to revert. Kkm010 and a completely different editor seem to have worked out the secondary dispute, but I really don't understand why Kkm010 saw fit to revert twice before doing so.

Honestly, I don't know what the right "solution" is. Kkm010's recent history of reverting other editors is not a constructive one. An article ban for both Kkm010 and Tib42 might be a longer-term solution, but that can't be obtained here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys its been discussed so many times but unfortunately user:Tib42 simply refusing to give up. From Dennis Brown to Bbb2 everybody tried their best to explain the matter to user:Tib42 still he seems to be so adamant that I have to keep an eye on this article. However, If any misconduct has been done by me I apologize for my behavior. As far as my point of view is concern too much "awards and honors" looks odd and disgusting. Great people won thousands of awards but that doesn't mean we have to list every single awards.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, if you look at the talk page for the article you will see that I have explained my rationale for each award/honor. I have presented these arguments twice. I have also posted on Kkm010's page to discuss this on the talk page. I am happy to discuss this with Kkm010 and come to an understanding but he/she refuses to discuss this. Please note, Kkm010 has not articulated why he/she does not agree with the list of reasons provided on the talk page. Instead, he/she consistently undoes my changes and refuses to discuss these changes in any way. It is unclear to me why this person would object to honors from TIME magazine, Fortune, etc. whereas he/she does not uphold the same standard for other articles that Kkm010 actively edits (such as Ratan Tata, Dhirubhai Ambani, etc.). Why are not those awards 'odd and disgusting'? Why is an honor by TIME magazine ranking this individual's contributions with Mahatma Gandhi 'odd and disgusting;? It does not seem like Kkm010 is being objective here. This is unfair. As the records on the talk page will note, I have been constructive and I have tried to work with Bbb23 and Ryan and it only when they did not raise objections to my arguments that I saw fit to commit these changes. I did not do so unilaterally. Kkm010 has misrepresented the truth and the talk page for the article will show it. I did not get deeply involved in this discussion about honors and awards when Dennis looked at it back in June. There was another editor (AnimeshKulkarni) who was making the case for the honors/awards. It is only in the past few months that I have been involved and I have presented the case for every award. I am happy to elucidate further and make my case. ---- Tib42 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• As Bbb23 points out, I mediated a discussion trying to find resolution on this article. From my perspective, I see Tib42 as an SPA that has edited tendentiously but has gotten a little better at communicating. I think Kkm010 has generally tried to communicate, but recently become more combative in dealing with Tib42. I'm not aware of any other issues with Kkm010, I think they are just pushed to edge with Tib42's behavior, something I can actually empathize with after dealing with them for weeks. Of course, that doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does explain it. The problem is actually both of them, equally, for very different reasons. I do not think blocks will solve any underlying problem or prevent disruption in the long run, and may actually antagonize the situation. I would support a topic ban for both editors for this single article at WP:AN, and think that is the best solution for all involved, and ask that someone refer (or move) this case to that board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hi User:Dennis Brown, yes, I am very interested in this article because he is my hero. But so what? My interest in this person got my to wikipedia in the first place. Who is to say that motivation is wrong? In the due course of time I would like to edit articles for the few heroes I have. If you look at the talk page for the article I have articulated for each and every honor/award why I think it makes sense. If kkm010, you, or anybody else disagrees I am happy to discuss this further. But without even a response from any of you to my arguments, how can I be blamed for being tendentious? I would imagine if you responded to my arguments and I am being stubborn about it and not listening to reason only then would you call me tendentious. When pages like Hilary Clinton can list an exhaustive list of awards from very similar sources nobody seems to have an issue. But why in this case? I have come to understand that I must engage collaboratively and discuss these issue. I have tried to do this, as the records shall reflect. But I don't see a response from the other side except an irrational roll back. --- Tib42 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis Brown and Bbb23 you guys are far more experience than me or Tib42. You know that listing awards which are not notable looks odd. Great businessmen like Bill Gates or Steve job's article, editors haven't list awards the way the Murthy article been written. Anyway its upto you what's good for this article. I have already sated my point of view and hope that some justice shall be done to this article. If you guys want both Tib42 and me to block from editing this article you can go ahead, but make sure that the issue get resolved.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose both Tib42 and Kkm010 be topic banned from the article N. R. Narayana Murthy or any article where Mr. Murthy is the subject matter for an indefinite period of time. This is a more effective way to prevent disruption by two editors that have not had problems outside this one article. For the record, I have mediated discussions on the content of this article but have not made substantial edits to the content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although it's been quite some time, I was more involved in the content dispute before Dennis's mediation attempts. I think Tib42 is sincere but is stubborn and repetitive in their arguments. Even though an award may be rejected as non-noteworthy, Tib42 persists, sometimes with a rehash of their old arguments, and sometimes with slightly new arguments. Once in a while they may even have a valid new argument, but it gets lost in the dizzying shuffle. Essentially, someone less partisan needs to be involved. I have less sympathy for Kkm010, whom I see as passive-aggressive/disruptive. They are inclined to battle but then back off when chided, but that initial tendency to battle is concerning. My recollection is they were difficult to deal with because of this behavior. Regardless, the article will hopefully be better of without either editor, and the resources spent by Dennis, Ryan, and me dealing with the issues are significant.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I was also hoping that this issue could be resolved with a regular and civil discussion at the talk page, but it turned into multiple disruptive revert-chains. I have also less sympathy for Kkm010, who was in my eyes not only aggressive to Tib42 but also recent to Rtat. See User_talk:Kkm010#Narayana_Murthy_2 and related article reverts. I'm not involved in the content dispute. I only requested twice a temporary page protection. SchreyP ^(messages) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I was hoping to see a more lowered solution, but if both Bbb23, Ryan and Dennis were unable to achieve this, I see that a topic ban is the only way to prevent this. Also, I'd add that the ban may not be lifted (or requested to be lifted) in at least six months. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, and fairly strongly (long but please read) I suppose quite a bit of the blame lies on me because I keep attempting to start discussion, but it's a topic I'm not entirely interested in and I've been unable to complete discussion on. When I closed the first discussion, there was consensus to include 7 awards found at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Award list listed under Notable Awards. Unfortunately, Tib42 did not return during that discussion, so no consensus was made towards any of the "possibly notable awards". This means no consensus was made to include them, and while it was determined that consensus should be sought before adding any of the other awards, no consensus was made to exclude them. Tib42 has restored the material without going to the talk page. In two instances, I initiated talk page discussion and Tib42 engaged in discussion in each instance. There is a concern to the effect that Tib42 continues to use inherent notability arguments (i.e. someone important has received this award; therefore, it should be included). Nobody else has engaged in discussion. The difficulty I have had is that Tib42 is attempting to restore 10 awards at once. They have widely different degrees of significance and I have been unable to engage in discussion on all of the awards at the same time (my previous involvement had only been to close the first discussion and my only action on the article was to make the initial edit to make the awards section in line with the closed discussion). Now it is clear that despite the failure of all involved editors to come to a consensus on the talk page (through lack of discussion), there is clearly not consensus to include all of the awards that Tib42 wants to include or we wouldn't be here. But I still disagree with the notion that there is consensus to exclude all of the awards, I would be among the group that things some of them should be included. A better solution would be to bring this issue to a more structured mediation forum (possibly Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution) and/or discuss only one award at a time. Ryan Vesey 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is a lucid summary of the content dispute, but it doesn't really address the conduct issues. I have a few questions. First, what about a voluntary agreement by the two editors not to edit the article while mediation is ongoing at DRN? Second, and probably more important to the editors, what state do we leave the article in while that discussion is occurring? Normally, that shouldn't matter barring policy violations, but we should be clear as to what we're doing. Finally, what if there is no consensus at DRN? My overarching concern here is to prevent further disruption to the article, not necessarily to "resolve" the content issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article, or at least the awards section, certainly shouldn't be edited by either of them while the dispute is being resolved. That was in my mind, but I didn't type it out. I believe the article should be left in the state with fewer awards while the dispute is being resolved. If no consensus for anything can be found at DRN, then it would stay in it's current state. At this point, consensus needs to be found to add any material. Ryan Vesey 19:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support – No matter who is right about the underlying issue, the continued reverting is disruptive. I support the article ban on both parties. If one or both of them believe that a solution has been found, they can return to WP:AN and ask for the restriction to be lifted. I understand that this ban is only from the article, not the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  That is correct, the least amount of restriction that will do the job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but non-indefinite. For Tib42: a SPA is not necessarily something I object to. If someone only cares about one battleship, say, and is incrementally helping it reach FA status, hey, more power to them. But when I compare the article from when Tib started and the present day, the net benefit of this article's "improvement" is outweighed by many orders of magnitude by the black hole sucking in editor hours. Has this situation been a net benefit for the encyclopedia? Let Tib42 focus on other things for a while, then get back to it. I really don't get Kkm010's motives here but through looking at situation it appears, in my opinion, like (s)he has long since passed WP:BOLDness into WP:OWNership and think a break is needed. Not indefinite, just a break for the both of them. Gears are locked, the admins hold the grease, please apply. PhnomPencil (✉) 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see evidence that Tib42 is tenacious, but I don't see disruption worthy of a ban. I hope Tib42 will accept Ryan's suggestion to review the awards one at a time, and reach a consensus. My cursory review is that many of these deserve to be in the article, but I'll try to opine one at a time. Unfortunately for those who think there are too many, my initial attempt to review one of them uncovered another one not on the list, which I will add.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hehe, not only opposing but adding another entry. Don't you have a party to go to? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know :). FWIW, I just weighed in with an oppose for one of the awards.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• fine, if you guys want to do this,, go ahead. But don't do it in the name of fairness. I have abided by a consensus decision in the past on a cofounder issue for this article. Once you both decided on the final word, on the cofounder issue I abided by the decision. In this case nobody had presented an argument before for the awards and I presented it on a case by case basis. I also dropped awards that I realized there would be no consensus on. I have provided citations references and arguments for why. In response I still don't understand what you object to content wise. You have still not explained why you object to honors by Time magazine and it's ilk for this person but you have not don't so for peoplemlike Hilary Clinton or bill gates. The precedence that this decision sets is that we must all hold all biographies to the same standard and eliminate any credible list of awards. That is the message you are sending by leaving this article incomplete on this particular issue. Since there is no consensus or let alone a rational discussion, I am being bullied on this issue and I have choice but to accept. --- Tib42 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As it is a holiday for much of the English speaking world, leaving this discussion up for an extended period may be appropriate to allow a full discussion. It is a strong step, warranting more than a few comments before acting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've restored this topic from the archive for further discussion and hopefully a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Tib, you are not being bullied. What's being discussed *right now* is your behavior in repeatedly edit-warring. This isn't a decision about the validity of the awards, and your argument about Clinton & Gates doesn't really apply. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• This post is just to keep this from being archived again. The voting and discussion aren't really gaining much traction. This is the last time I'll do this.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin threatening to block an arbitrator?

No more drama. Horologium (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2013 (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. Is this a serious threat or is it just a joke? [21] Mathsci (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC) A mage war is a thing to see....However there is no prohibition from this if they are indeed crossing the bounds of policy and warnings have been issued. What's the problem with holding them to the policies like we are, they are above the policies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Indeed it is, but you shouldn't be closing a discussion about yourself. I will leave it hatted regardless as it's hardly an AN matter anyway. Snowolf How can I help? 13:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Unlike Snowolf, I am perfectly happy unhatting it. I find it particularly disruptive that User:Gimmetrow is threatening to block a brand new Arbitrator who received very high approval because of his perceived misuse of the tools and is granting himself single handed authority to execute sanctions against this arbirtrator on an issue he is now involved in. I think we may indeed need to issue a block, but to who I wonder. Disruption or protection of the project. I also find it disturbing that User:Gimmetoo, his alternate account, would close this thread. At the very least, it shows a greying of the WP:INVOLVED line in this administrator's eye. And that I do consider a WP:ANI issue.--v/r - TP 13:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TParis (talk • contribs) I've re-unhatted it, NE, please read the discussion, Gimmetro is User:Gimmetrow and he is an administrator. Snowolf How can I help? 13:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC) A discussion with NW and NW's talk page is not an issue for here. You clearly do not understand what is going on in that discussion. Let NW respond for himself. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Either way, you should not be hatting a discussion concerning yourself. KTC (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Might help us understand if you provided diffs. That's a good place to start. Ohh, and not closing threads about yourself, also a good place to start. Not threatening to block someone you are so involved with and clearly upset about. You might want to take a damage report before firing torpedoes, sir.--v/r - TP 13:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's right, though that was meant to stop the drama. But given the recent incident where Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked for reopening closed threads, I assume those who reopened the thread will be censured for continuing the drama ,right TParis? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2013 (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. 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. More precisely, I was blocked for reverting an edit-warring administrator who failed to discuss his mis-use of the close template here to stop discussion, and preferred to try to intimidate me with huffing and puffing that he would block me. You can see that I was reverted soon afterwords, in another thread, which was reopened by Demiurge1000 without complaint. A double standard, of course. Please notify me when I am discussed here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Kiefer - please notify me when I am being discussed here. I blocked you continuing to to re-open a closed discussion which furthered unverified and serious allegations about an editor. Back on topic: Gimmetoo has a habit of threatening fellow Admins with blocks. GiantSnowman 14:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Nope. I gave reasons, and Giant Snowman failed to respond even once. GS edit warred, threatened, and then mis-used his block button, rather than engaging in discussion. Then GS advertised that he was going for a drink..., a rather strange ending to a rather strange day, even for GS.... Why did GS respond on Gimmetoo's page? Why not answer the thread on GS's page, to allow readers to follow the discussion? Why didn't GS respond to my discussion on the AN/I page? Perhaps he should try to respond now? Better late than never. Let's have a pity party for GS, who feels upset because he was threatened with being blocked after edit warring and blocking an editor rather than responding to his discussion. Life is so unfair. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:01, 2 January 2013 (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.

Topic ban

Could an administrator please close WP:ANI#Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing, which is a request for a topic ban. TFD (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

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.

---

Could an uninvolved admin look at Talk:Conversion_therapy#WP:ARBPSEUDO? In short there is discussion to see if this article can be considered as part of the Arbcom decision and edits placed under 1rr restriction to limit the edit warring. Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

See also the still open discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conversion therapy. Monty₈₄₅ 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't know that was going on. Insomesia (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2013 (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.

RfC

Could an admininstrator please close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. TFD (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's been almost no comments there. It's fairly inactive. I would have a hard time summarizing any consensus from the small number of comments and endorsements there. --Jayron32 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it really should be closed as without merit in regards to community opinion as only a couple of the involved in the disputes have commented , so there is not community interest or assessment of the situation and that RFC should not be considered as a reason to allow escalation to Arbitration - It does need to be closed though as its been open long enough as per guidelines , hasn't it? - certified on the 20th of November , open for 6 weeks - and as such I second the request for closure - I am uninvolved imo and willing to close it myself if no admin wants to ? Youreallycan 07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Darkstar1st - Youreallycan 07:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• update - my closure has been reverted by User:RolandR diff - with the edit summary, Reverted to revision 530915559 by RolandR: Undoing closure, since this did not meet any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. (TW)) - Youreallycan 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It should really be something left to an admin to close. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • YRC, you said that you were willing to close "if no admin wants to" and yet waited less than half-an-hour before doing so? GiantSnowman 15:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I closed it 24 hours after the un-actioned request here - also tarc - there is no requirement for an admin only close - I was uninvolved in the rfc user and with the user in question - I am not seeing any dispute with the details and rationale of my close? - Youreallycan 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't a requirement but it is one of those things that's usually a pretty good idea. If someone sees an admin closure they're far less likely to slam the undo button, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The closure was clearly invalid. According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, "Certified disputes may be closed under any of the following circumstances: If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. From the main page, such RfC/Us are typically "delisted due to inactivity.", The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration, The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that rFc/u)."

It is evident that none of these applies: the dispute continues, and further complaints are still being made; there has been no move to another method of dispute resolution; and the parties have not agreed to a closure, certainly not on the RfC/U talk page. In these circumstances, even an admin closure would have been inappropriate, let alone one by a passing non-admin. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You really should strike everything following the comma in that last sentence. There's always more to read, it seems. --Nouniquenames 05:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

O'Dea's block by Hex

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.

---

Unarchived. I'm removing the archive template, leaving Fluffernutter's archive text below:

This is going nowhere good, fast. The block has been undone, status quo is back in place. Everyone, please go back to your corners and your work and try to de-escalate what's turned into a multiple personality-conflict pile-up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving is for when discussion is petering out, not for when it's ongoing but somebody thinks people should "go back to their corners". This isn't a lot like the boxing match the "corners" metaphor implies, anyway, since the parties are unequally matched (=one has a block button). (I'm planning to write something below very soon.) Bishonen | talk 15:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

---

I've just undid Hex's block on O'Dea - I see no reason to block and all the reasons to unblock. Didn't contact the blocking admin because with all these negotiations the block might expire and even though it's short this doesn't make it less outrageous. Max Semenik (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. What is it with admins rushing to unblock without discussion - always a poor move.--Scott Mac 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The block was blatantly incorrect, and unblocking was obviously the right thing to do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting here and getting a second opinion first would have been better. That's all I'm saying. If the block is plainly bad, a couple of others will endorse you and then you are not imposing your judgment over that of the blocking admin. If blocks can be bad judgement (and they can) so can unblocks.--Scott Mac 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • When the block is so obviously an abuse of admin tools, there's no prior discussion needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Jaw-droppingly bad blocks like this one are best immediately reversed, and discussed later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but... The problem is that one admin's "Jaw-droppingly bad block" isn't another's. With a bad block the blocker has made a bad judgement call - however, humility tells me that when I judge it as such, it is entirely possible I've missed something, or indeed that others would say my judement is bad. So, unless we want one admin simply overriding the judement of another, it is best to take 5 min and come here for a sanity check. If it is obviously bad, you'll get your unblock call endorsed immediately. Much less dramatic than risking the lone gunman stuff.--Scott Mac 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    Yeah in general it might be best to come somewhere like here and get a second opinion before undoing a block, but this kind of situation is definitely the exception. This is why WHEEL is worded the way it is, I think. There are cases—like this—where we want the damage from really poor administrative actions to be minimized as much as is possible. It was probably pretty obvious to MaxSem that if the unblock was the wrong move then O'dea was not going to do anything too harmful during the short period of time it would have taken ANI here to come to a consensus to reinstate the block. I think this unblock was the right move, even before coming here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't think that this was quite an "abuse of admin tools", but a block for not using edit summaries is clearly unjustified given that no policy requires them, and many experienced editors chose to not sure them. As such, I think Max did the right thing by lifting this block without delay and reporting the matter here for additional opinions on his and O'Dea's actions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  He hadn't actually "not used edit summaries" - the blocking admin just didn't think one of them was good enough, and blocked when it was pointed out to him that he was wrong about policy. That's abuse in my book. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Wrong. You're very poor at reading a situation.

I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing - I assumed in good faith - the minor edit feature. Advised him of the fact. He responded by blanking his talk page. I checked back later, noticed no change in behavior. Advised him much more strongly that he needed to start using it correctly and that he should not ignore the advice. He blanked it again. Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary, advised O'Dea of that fact and provided - politely - a link to help on how to correctly use the feature. O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with, and leaving a comment with a gibberish edit summary. I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly. O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me.

I blocked O'Dea for disruptive editing, exhibited by his interactions with me. Not because he didn't use an edit summary. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment prior to blocking was "Keep taking the piss and see what happens" - he wasn't taking the piss, he was pointing out that a) policy does *not* require good edit summaries, and that b) you were not perfect regarding edit summaries yourself. The block looks to me like it was out of spite. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You look wrongly. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was out of spite; sometimes blocks are just bad blocks, and people need to learn from them. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the incivility/PA; none of the comments were severe enough to justify any action. I think it's a matter of interpretation whether this is ok: [22], personally I think it's fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no requirement for edit summaries to make sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought we stopped even posting stats about edit summary usage on RfA talk pages... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Before forming an opinion on this matter, readers should examine in the edit history what actually transpired, and not accept Hex's sanitised version of what he would like you to believe. This was inexcusable bullying followed by punishing the user with a block because he tried to stand up for himself. O'Dea is a committed content builder who had a clean block log. He has far more experience in content building than Hex has. As usual on admin boards, little interest is shown in redressing an assault like this on a valuable content builder. The focus is merely on protecting the sanctity of admins, however bad. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hex, let me tell you about best practice: never block for attacks against yourself. (Of course don't block at all for something as un-attacky as this was, but that's another matter.) There's no rule that says you're not allowed to, but it's best not. And when you see a user post something "clearly intended to anger me", then don't oblige them, for goodness sake! Don't get angry and block in anger! You're supposed to be the bigger man in such exchanges. Not just the man with the big gun. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

• Thanks for the comments. For the record, there was no anger involved, as much as drama queens like Epipelagic would like to make out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Holy cat among the pigeons, Batman! Blocked for repeatedly misusing the minor edit box, something in which virtually no one pays any attention to, by an administrator who was completely, 100% involved? I've seen Hex's name around quite a bit lately and I generally like the guy, but this is a pretty colossal lapse in judgment. I sure hope he has no intention of repeating that kind of mistake again, because it actually does have a bit of a chilling effect on those who don't waste any time worrying about such arbitrary things (like myself). Kurtis ^(talk) 11:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to Hex by O'Dea

The following are my observations about Hex's comments, above, time-stamped at 23:48, 29 December 2012:

• Hex: "I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing ... the minor edit feature."

Reply by O'Dea: This is a red herring. Hex did not cite it as a factor in blocking my edits. It is not relevant at all to what he did.

• "He responded by blanking his talk page."

It is my talk page. I maintain is as I please. In the past, I used to carefully archive my talk page periodically, but more recently I concluded that it was not worth the effort to me – the amount of talk traffic is normally very low. If I or anyone wants my talk history, it is there in the page history. My present default is to clean my page fairly often, and I will remove the latest conversations on it soon. This is none of Hex's business at all and is not a factor in deciding to block another editor. This is another red herring, and Hex took it upon himself to interpret my neutral page clearing action as an attack upon him, which it was not, as my talk page history shows that I clear it often.

The WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED policies were explained to Hex by another editor just two months ago and he demonstrated in his reply that he understood them, yet here he is again pretending that he has a hard time understanding policies when he complains that I cleared my talk page. Once again, he is guilty of selective narrative and inconsistency.

• "Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary."

This is a feeble attempt to make something out of nothing. Edit summaries are not compulsory, nor is there a threshold quality to be sustained. In short, my edit summaries are no business of Hex's. In any case, anyone with time on his hands who wants to trawl through my edit summary history will find precious little to complain about, and even if such an archaeologist personally despised my edit summaries, there is no binding policy concerning them. There is advice about edit summaries, and I normally summarise my edits and do so fairly meaningfully. My record speaks for itself. Hex threatened me with a block already on only his second visit to my talk page. He likes to increase the pressure rapidly. He said I would be blocked from editing until I could demonstrate that I understood the point he was making. I resisted the temptation to reply to his provocative and bullying talk of blocking with the first thought that struck me which was that, if I was blocked, I would not be able to demonstrate any kind of article editing behaviour at all. But I exercised patience and simply ignored him, and made no reply about the patent absurdity of his logic.

• "O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with".

This is sour grapes because I found an example of Hex failing to match his own misplaced standards. The word "grubbing" is truly an example of the kind of bad faith that Hex implied was not his style when he lectured me sanctimoniously about good faith on my talk page.

• "I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly."

This is a self-serving re-interpretation and sanitization of what Hex actually said, which was, "Keep taking the piss and see what happens". That was a direct threat, and one which was expressed in less careful language than Hex is using now that his actions are under scrutiny.

• "O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me."

I invite anyone to read my comment which pointed out Hex's inconsistency and directed him to read the edit summary advice at Wikipedia Help. It is clear from this whole fiasco that he did not understand the official position so my direction to him to read it was germane. I also asked him to cite exactly the transgression he thought I had committed, and I invited him to come back to discuss it. He has chosen to interpret this as "an inflammatory comment" – but that is his problem.

• In his latest comment about me elsewhere, Hex has said, "From my prior interactions with the user, I was unconvinced of their commitment to beneficially interacting with the rest of the community."

Leaving aside the flustered grammar, Hex's talk of "commitment to beneficially interacting with the rest of the community" is truly meaningless and irrelevant gobbledygook from a man finding himself embarrassed and in a corner.

• Hex just blew up because I pointed out his inconsistency in a way he could not wriggle out of, and he further believed, wrongly, that edit summaries are mandatory, and that I was wrong, but he was the one who misunderstood. He also misunderstood how to administer a situation like this one, and misunderstood when, and when not, to block other editors. There are, so far, ten editors who disagree with Hex's actions, on this page and at my talk page. No other editor who has examined the narrative has yet come forward to support Hex's position. I am entitled in the circumstances to repeat my demand that Hex withdraw the lie that I was "taking the piss", as the facts do not support this hostile and self-serving insinuation. — O'Dea (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR. Looks like a nice dramatic reading.

I can spot someone taking the piss from a mile away; it takes far worse than the likes of you to get my gall up. Your mental picture presumably has me howling like a monkey and hurling the keyboard across the room, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. I will admit, however, to momentarily raising an eyebrow and putting down my cup of tea. It's possible that I may have even emitted a small sigh. Anyway, feel free to demand whatever you want. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hex, I think the people assuming you did this out of blind rage are simply giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to imagine anyone fit to be an admin would have made such an awful block without something like the kind of furious, face-reddening anger that makes it hard for one to see straight. Arguing that you were not in a state of rage is not helping you. Arguing that this was the result of careful consideration and the kind of decision you come up with at your best is not helping you. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, O'Dea... please don't expect the courtesy of a reply. Admins do not make errors. You and I are members of the unruly, and we really must be put down or ignored. The mere fact you had the presumption to come to Wikipedia and add content is proof enough that you are uppity. If Hex was one of the unwashed he could be arbitrarily sanctioned (if it amused just one other admin). But he's not, he's in the group that is here to arbitrarily sanction you. More to the point, your thinking on abuse is wrong. You should learn to chant the admin mantra, "the only admin abuse is abuse of admins".

Many admins are keen on using their own particular idea of "civility" as a weapon for smashing content builders. This is a splendid weapon, almost impossible to challenge, and they have been practicing lately on each other. But it is not a weapon a lowly content editor may use against an admin. It's like the samurai's sword; only the samurai may use it. Hex's behaviour and punishing block may seem a gross breach of civility. It is not, as the non-action on this board will shortly prove. Admin behaviour towards a content builder never lacks civility. Hex may discipline you at his whim. As a content builder you may grovel, but not grizzle.

The best content builders have left or are leaving, like rats perhaps, since content builders are treated like vermin here. Wikipedia is spiralling in deadly ways as unskillful administrators destabilise it. Hex's hubris, his clear belief he is entitled to behave the way he does, is a symptom of that. In time, if this trend continues, Wikipedia will degenerate into a comic book Conservapedia for the impoverished, with ingratiatingly polite overlords feasting on hapless content builders that mistakenly stumble into its maw. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Having fun, are we? — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

[At this point user:Fluffernutter closed this thread with: "This is going nowhere good, fast. The block has been undone, status quo is back in place. Everyone, please go back to your corners and your work and try to de-escalate what's turned into a multiple personality-conflict pile-up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)" [Inserted for context, Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)]

• Really? The status quo is not "back in place". A content builder now has an undeserved block log and has been subjected to inappropriate abuse by an admin. Nothing has being done to reasonably redress this. Are you really endorsing this thread, Fluffernutter, as an exemplar of the way admins now handle content builders? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  I am endorsing nothing here other than the fact that the thread was turning nasty very quickly and that I personally believe it would be wise for all parties to try to cool down rather than keep hammering away. I can't force you to do that, I can only recommend. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well... as I predicted. there it is. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• So: no integrity, no withdrawal, no apology, no guts. Noted. — O'Dea (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Hex about their replies in this thread

Hex, the arrogance of your replies in this thread is terrible, especially the reply to O'Dea above, "TL;DR" and all. (Your block was terrible, too, but I think you've already been told that.) Really, O'Dea responded once, in self-defence after being blocked — unreasonably blocked, if the deafening consensus above is to be believed — and you, the blocking admin, couldn't take the time to read it? The last passage of the essay WP:TL;DR might interest you:

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.

I'll charitably assume you didn't mean the "didn't read" literally, but only as the kind of attempt to discredit which the green quote describes, and a way to express your contempt of "the likes of you" and their "demands" (your italics). If your demeanour is a symptom of burnout, Hex, please consider taking a break, and coming back refreshed. If it represents your actual view of admin responsibilities, I'm sorry to see you're not open to recall. Would you consider standing for a new RFA? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

• I'm really quite shocked the way Hex has responded here. The block reason was "Ignoring repeated administrative requests to properly use the edit summary feature, and responding to same by attempting to needle the admin making the requests", which is essentially for (a) failure to obey a policy that doesn't even exist, and (b) daring to point out the admin's error. In my view, this is clearly abuse of admin tools.

  An admin with integrity would be expected to accept their error and apologise, especially after the unequivocal consensus that Hex was wrong, and that is really what I was expecting to see from Hex here. Instead, we see him digging in and entrenching his unjustifiable position, downplaying what he actually said (vis "I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly" versus his actual words "Keep taking the piss and see what happens"). And then in response to O'Dea's accurate, justified and clearly presented explanation of what actually happened, we got a condescending and contemptuous "TL;DR" response.

  This is typical of the arrogance of some of the bad old admins who seem to think they have carte blanche to arbitrarily impose their authoritah, and that "ordinary" editors should shut up and not talk back. Judging by this display, Hex is not fit to be an admin, and if we had a more workable route for requesting admin recall, I would be pursuing it. So Hex, as you steadfastly reject what some of your fellow admins here are telling you (and I see none supporting you), I have to join Bishonen in asking if you will stand for a reconfirmation RfA? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While Bish's and BsZ's identification of an issue is spot on if incomplete -- there's also the drama queen PA on Epipelagic -- the correct remedy is not an unlikely-to-be accepted challenge for a reconfirmation Rfa. I'm not aware of prior screwups by Hex, so I think feedback from AN should be sufficient; if not, RFC/U should be the next step. NE Ent 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from AN should be sufficient if the editor is willing to accept it, but Hex clearly is not. And if an editor is not willing to listen to valid criticism, the entirely voluntary RFC/U process is an utter waste of time (though I suspect you are right that a request to consider a confirmation RfA will fail, I think we need to suggest that option). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It is unknown whether Hex will accept the feedback here or not; what matters is not whether Hex posts some sort of admission but what actions they take in the the future. Clearly O'Dea has received the support of the community in validating the block was wrong, which is good. Telling Hex they erred and explaining why we think so is good; berating and badgering beyond that is not. See also Editors have pride; although it was written for a different context the underlying concepts apply. NE Ent 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(Regarding pride, Proverbs 16:18 contains sound words - no religious affiliation on my part implied). Hex has actually rejected the feedback here so far, at least at the time of his last comment. Whether he continues to do so is currently unknown, and as Bish suggested, there are (at least) two viable options - Hex really can either accept the feedback and maybe take a break for a while, or he can continue to argue that he was right. If he chooses the latter option, then further action is required, and a reconfirmation RfA to allow the community to decide would seem like a relatively speedy and honorable way to proceed. Given Hex's apparent contempt for the opinions of others so far, I'd welcome your suggestions for a better way to proceed (given that RFC/U is entirely voluntary and cannot work if the editor in question will not consider its validity). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The most viable and least disruptive option is the thread winds down -- the archive bot always get the the last word -- and Hex doesn't make inappropriate blocks in the future. That said, I don't think a shut the discussion up close tag is appropriate here, lest Hex and or other editors decide they have something to say.. NE Ent 20:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As in archived = swept under the carpet? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Give it a rest. If admins are seriously discussing the best way to get a fellow admin desysopped, or eligible for desysopping, there's no need to make vague allegations about the cabal covering its own ass. Well, there's never a need to make vague allegations about the cabal covering its own ass, but this is an especially inappropriate case. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Goodness, either you are joking or you radically misunderstand what is happening here. Hex will not respond and the matter will simply be dropped. This is not just some random happenstance. This is how it works here, and why the editors who are best at writing the encyclopedia are increasingly being discarded. Bishonen and Boing! are exemplary admins doing the best they can, and we are lucky we still have admins left of their calibre and humanity. But there are about 700 active admins, and it seems that Bishonen and Boing!, in this thread, are the only ones willing to champion the rights of content editors to some dignity. Wikipedia has already sunk into a destructive pit and become a playground for admins with decidedly other agendas. As a result, the usual default action here will happen, which is no action. Admins generally may be as incivil as they choose towards content editors. It's true that two admins were recently (and absurdly) blocked for incivility, but that was because they were incivil towards another admin, not another content editor.

Generally the ultimate act of incivility, the most humiliating and hurtful thing to do to a content editor is to block him or her. Worst is the indefinite block, which specifically aims at making the editor grovel. Right now, a move is underway at WP:BLOCK to rewrite the blocking policy so the block noose can be tightened more around the content editors neck. In this thread, an admin who recently achieved celebrity with his terminal block of Malleus Fatuorum, is charging ahead, calling for multiple blocks and the widespread use of indefinite blocks without warnings:

If I see that someone has been blocked for edit-warring before and I'm thinking about blocking him for edit-warring again, I see no value in warning him again... I'd block a handful of users rather than fully protect a page in nearly all instances... most of the blocks I give in such situations are indefinite.

Wikipedia's content editors are generally too good for the quality of the admin system. Most content editors have their heads down writing the encyclopedia, and do not realize, or want to realize, what is actually happening here. Anyway, this thread will no doubt be closed now on the grounds that matters like these are irrelevant on an administrators board, as indeed they seem to be. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If this thread goes through to the archive with no acknowledgement from this admin that he has behaved badly, I'll take it to ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never entertained the idea that administrators can or should be perfect 100% of the time; however, when administrators take action, they must be open to discussion on those actions. Recently, I came across an administrator who misused some tools. The issue was discussed and resolved, the administrator apologized and assured that the event in question would not occur again. I have no problem with that. In this case, Hex has been unwilling to discuss his actions and accept that the block was incorrect. This is wholly inappropriate for an administrator and a personality trait that isn't suited to the extra tools. I would like to see this go to ArbCom. Ryan Vesey 22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've got a decent amount of street cred for supporting the desysopping of admins who have a history of doing this kind of thing, but I think going to ArbCom right away, if we don't get an "acknowledgement", is premature. For one thing, demanding apologies is a mug's game. For another, I really doubt ArbCom would take the case after just this one incident. A better approach is probably to note that if it happens again, it will go to ArbCom, and point to the two recent cases where this type of thing has resulted in a desysop the admins in question ended up leaving due to the threat of a desysop (correction, I had my fact wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)), once it can be shown to be a pattern. This was clearly a bad block, and a really disappointing reaction to universal criticism of it, but I suggest staying focused on the future, and not trying to back Hex into a corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Others have covered this below but because you are addressing my use of "acknowledgement" I should clarify that I'm not talking about an apology. I'm looking for simple recognition that his behaviour, surrounding the block and the block itself, was unambiguously bad. This is, after all, as far as I can see, the unanimous view of all here. I would certainly like to hear from anyone who thinks it was not bad. Without that acknowledgement, it would be irresponsible to leave him with the bit. We owe it to the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

While an apology would be appreciated, I don't believe in demanding them either; however, I do believe that administrators should be required to discuss any administrative action they take. While this is a volunteer project, I would say there's consensus that taking an administrative action must be accompanied by a willingness to discuss that action otherwise that action should not be taken. Hex failed to respond to O'Dea, responding with a TLDR and saying he could "spot someone taking the piss from a mile away". I understand your point Floq, but this just isn't the type of behavior I want to see from somebody who has the ability to block someone. Luckily, it doesn't appear like Hex uses that tool much. Ryan Vesey 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to do with apologies either, it's about trust going forward. And if Hex still believes that what he did was right, despite all the feedback he's getting, then he does not have our trust as an admin - anyone at RfA today who pointed to Hex's recent action and said it was fine would be roasted. It's fine for someone to have a bad day and make a bad call due to stress or other emotion, but we need to see a positive reaction to feedback - not an entrenched insistence that their actions were calm and justified. But in practical terms, if Hex does not respond positively, there's nothing we can do right now - because there is no de-sysop request mechanism that will deal with a case like this. As you say, Floquenbeam, ArbCom will only deal with cases when there are multiple examples of bad behaviour - I think there needs to be a mechanism that will deal with a single but unrepentant example, but there isn't one. So while I flatly reject Epipelagic's accusations that we (as admins) are trying to sweep it under the rug, the current weak system of redress does make it look that way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where did I generally accuse admins, and you for that matter, of trying to "sweep it under the rug"? I said nothing of the sort. In fact I specifically said that you were an exemplary admin doing the best you can. In rely to NE Ent's wish that nothing should be done and his statement that "the archive bot always get the the last word", I queried "As in archived = swept under the carpet?". Elsewhere I said that the default position is to do nothing. The reality is that that is the defacto position. It doesn't just "look that way", it is that way. Do you think that is incorrect? Why are you taking exception? You attacked me before in a similar manner, and I can only assume you are simmering with some anger you have about my views or attitude (real or imagined). If that is the case then I invite you to ask me about it somewhere so we can see if there is any substance to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for my misunderstanding. (As for any past interaction between us, I'm afraid I don't remember it, sorry - I have to confess I only vaguely recognise your name) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree; for me the issue isn't so much that there was no apology, it's that Hex still seems to believe this block was remotely reasonable. They're probably related, though, since presumably there is no apology because Hex still believes that this block was fine. As boing points out, there isn't much we as admins can do: threaten to indef Hex if this happens again? Hex isn't in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall so that pretty much just leaves us with ArbCom, and anyone can take this to ArbCom. I'm not quite as sure as others seem to be that arbcom won't take the case; the new panel might be a bit more willing to deal with the perennial complaint that desysopping is too hard... HaugenErik (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was curious about that. Could the new ArbCom declare that they will entertain requests for desysop? They'd accept or decline in the same manner as normal requests, but there would be fewer hoops to be jumped through before taking it to ArbCom because there aren't other desysop venues to take care of it. Ryan Vesey 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, they wouldn't need to make any declarations, would they? They would either accept the case (possibly in response to the complaints about it being too hard to desysop) or they wouldn't (because there aren't "multiple examples of bad behaviour"). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I hesitate to post this, as I think all I'm about to do is needlessly complicate everyone's life, but... Note that this looks very similar to the current situation. For those of you thinking about ArbCom, this is good news (beginnings of a pattern) and bad news (from November 20092008. (oops)). I'd still be surprised if an ArbCom case was accepted, but no longer think it's impossible. At this point, I'd like confirmation from Hex that he won't block anyone except clear vandals and spammers, something he's been doing without apparent incident for many years. To get me to not care anymore, he doesn't need to agree he's in the wrong, just that he doesn't agree with the Community's opinion, and is therefore going to skip that aspect of adminship. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, so he's done this kind of thing more than once - and he wouldn't accept being told it was a bad block last time either. I'm still not convinced that ArbCom would act on "once every three years" bad admin actions, but it must increase the chance slightly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I can support that, Floquenbeam. I have very serious concerns about this person's attitude. Unless I see an acknowledgement that his swaggering arrogance and contempt towards O'Dea and his block of O'Dea were unacceptable here, we should relieve him of the bit. As it stands, I can't trust him to deal fairly with borderline spammers and vandals. I don't trust his judgement at all, and it amazes me you're willing to. Can I recommend taking a look at his three RfA's? [23][24][25] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I am just giving my opinion, Anthony, I'm certainly not telling you what to do or what to think, i hope I haven't given that impression. Yes, I just finished looking at the three RFA's (including, in RFA #2, a promise to be open to recall if that RFA passed. but it didn't). Yes, I would have opposed all three. Yes, this incident gives me great pause, and if there was a reconfirmation RFA today with no agreement to stay away from this kind of block, I'd oppose. But there is a lot of good work he's done over the years, including good admin work, and I'm hoping some kind of trajectory other than the SchuminWeb or EncycloPetey cases can be worked out, so that we (Hex, and Wikipedia) don't mutually burn all our bridges. This does appear to be the only area I see problems in; if I could convince myself he won't do that one particular thing anymore, then I would consider his adminhoodness a net positive, and move on to find other more pressing problems more in need of solving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a page somewhere that lists the blocks he's made? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Try this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, more elegantly as a wikilink: Special:Log/block/Hex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's prettier (I just looked at my own and then changed the URL) ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's this from 23 December 2012. Where Hex blocked Twehringer thesociety (talk · contribs) for an unspecified user name violation, without discussing it first, as the policy recommends. This user name breaches no policy. Username policy says, "

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below. [...] usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as 'Mark at WidgetsUSA', 'Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", 'WidgetFan87', 'LoveTrammelArt', etc.

Two inappropriate blocks in ten days. Hex, can you explain the rationale behind this block, and why you didn't discuss it with the editor first? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the username block and the 2008 block Flo references above I do think we need to hear from Hex or push this to ArbCom. NE Ent 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to Floquenbeam, who is the only person to have had the common courtesy to alert me by email to the current status of this thread. I happen to be on vacation. My reply will be presented tomorrow. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I alerted you on your talkpage when I un-archived the thread on 29 December 1 January. But if you're not interested enough to enable the "e-mail me when my talkpage is changed" functionality when you go on holiday with something like this pending, then naturally that's somebody else's fault (just like everything else). Bishonen | talk 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Hex edited after Bish's notification so they should have seen the orange message bar. NE Ent 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This just keeps getting worse. KillerChihuahua 05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I'll start by addressing the two blocks mentioned above.

1. At the time of the 2008 block I didn't fully understand about avoiding tools when involved in a content dispute. Subsequently, I did. You may also notice that I managed to accidentally pass 3RR on the same occasion. I've not done that since, either.
2. Looking at it again, the user name block was in fact incorrect. It should have been a spam-only block. Twehringer_thesociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s only contributions were to a spam article, The Society of Leadership and Success, an organization that they are the director of communications for.[26] That article itself is, I now notice, a copy of the user space page User:NSLS92617/National Society of Leadership and Success, itself deleted as spam. That user name clearly alludes to the Irvine, California branch of this organization,[27] and is a clear promotional name. I'll let somebody else deal with that. In this case, I evidently managed to conflate two block reasons — one of which I obviously misremembered. I'm not sure that I recollect ever making a user name-based block before, for that matter. I've now corrected the error on the user's talk page.

Now I'm going to have my say about what's been happening on this noticeboard. Whether you read it or not is up to you — if it's too long for you to bother with, that's fine with me.

Some of the participants here appear to think they're running a drumhead court martial. They're not. This is a kangaroo court; trial by auto-da-fé. It's certainly the first time that I've encountered somewhere that people are put into the stocks in the village square and then expected to account for themselves while being pelted with rotten fruit. Someone above uses the word bullying; what breathtaking hypocrisy. To pick another metaphor, shooting fish in a barrel is easy because the barrel is full of fish. This venue has managed to create the complete inverse by putting one fish in a barrel and surrounding it with gunmen.

I've been called out on mistakes before. When people have talked to me on a one-to-one basis — that's why user talk pages exist, in order for direct and efficient communication — I've always been more than happy to talk through and consider my actions. If the responding administrator had chosen to leave me a message (perhaps "I believe the block was bad and wrong because..., can you explain yourself and are you willing to lift it before I do?") then there would have been the almost complete certainty of a diametrically opposite conclusion to events in every respect. However, he chose the single most dramatic course (including instantaneously undoing the block with the marvelous comment "WTF?" - how indicative of a bona fide attempt to resolve an issue) and parachuting me into here.

With the exception of Floquenbeam emailing me, as I mentioned earlier, nobody has attempted to talk to me outside this obloquious vipers' nest. That does not include Anthonyhcole — the self-appointed Torquemada of this particular inquisition (who, incidentally, left me a talk page comment insulting me and calling other editors "morons" before deleting it a moment later — class act). Who is Anthonyhcole? Who knows. I'm not sure why someone that isn't an administrator would choose to hang around on what is ostensibly the administrators' noticeboard, unless they derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. It certainly isn't due to any formal role. Some people might respond to that kind of thing by digging through his record to try and have a mud-slinging match - much as he's decided it's somehow appropriate to present my RFAs as some kind of bizarre "evidence". I shan't descend to that level.

My penance is also apparently expected to contain replying to massive slabs of mistaken accusations based on conjection and assumption, long after the fact of my actions being undone and judged and my being given a public whipping. Even if I did, whatever I said can and probably will be challenged by every drive-by Joe McCarthy wannabe that feels like taking a pop because they're convinced they know the contents of my own mind better than I do. What a great use of time and effort. Not to mention the presence of people who apparently choose to latch onto discussions in this space in order to use them as a springboard for presenting their own personal conspiracy theories.

This environment appears to attract the officious in droves. Some are even so astonishingly self-important that they think, wrongly, that they can demand my immediate participation in this rotten caucus. Even after I've pointed out that I'm on vacation. And even threatening me with going to ArbCom if I fail to respond to their demands, in whatever pressing timescale they've conjured into existence. Presumably these threats of ArbCom involvement without prior formal dispute resolution are making the claim of the necessity of exception 1, "emergency action to remove administrator privileges"? That would presumably put me on a par with EncycloPetey, who Floquenbeam mentioned. I looked up the details of his desysopping, and frankly I reject the comparison.

I've only had the administrators' noticeboards on my watchlist for a few months, but have barely looked at them in that time. I now understand why I frequently see them referred to as "the drama boards". As of right now I'm joining the growing number of administrators that choose to ignore them. My talk page, as always, remains open. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that username you blocked was not a promotional username. Please read the quotebox just above. You got it wrong.

The kangaroo court above involves ten admins and ten editors in good standing. All we've been waiting for is an acknowledgement from you that your block and your treatment around the block of O'Dea was inappropriate. That's all.

I don't think you have the right temperament for adminship, I'm afraid. So I'm filing a request at RfA that they desysop you. I think this is such a clear case that it would be detrimental to the project to waste time on other processes. Perhaps ArbCom won't see it that way. We'll find out. I'll let you know when I've filed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If I was one to block for personal attacks, which I'm not, you'd find yourself blocked now, Hex, for the way you speak to Anthonyhcole above. Do you take WP:AN to be some kind of free zone where you get to say the first thing that comes into your head no matter how shitty it is? Or where you can express any amount of rudeness, contempt and ABF to anybody as long as they're not an admin? Because I notice there's a bit of a difference in the way you address the different categories of users in this thread: you speak reasonably civilly to the admins — within shouting distance of civilly, anyway — or, well, you avoid attacking them individually, anyway — while there's apparently nothing you won't say to a non-admin, from TL;DR to Torquemada. Therefore, I'm also beginning to think we should let ArbCom look at this. They may not indeed want to remove your tools for basically one bad use of them; but they should get a chance to sanction you just as a user, for generally appalling battleground behaviour. Then you can call them Joe McCarthy wannabes and tell them they must derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request to desysop Hex --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Twehringer thesociety is not a promotional name. It's a personal name. The person's name is Tracy Wehringer, and xyr electronic mail address, given on press releases by the organization concerned as a contact, is twehringer@…. It's rather sad to see a person who straightforwardly uses xyr own name and the organization that xe works for suffering for supposedly having a "promotional name". I hope that this doesn't apply to account names like Okeyes (WMF), too. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2013 (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.

Quick read on an unblock 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.

---

Now comes Ranger1991 (talk · contribs), who was blocked indef in May 2008 as a vandalism-only account. The account's history largely bears that out - 17 edits from August 2007 to May 2008, all the sort of juvenile kids-screwing-around flavor of vandalism we've all seen before. Good block, to all appearances. Now, over 4 years later, the editor has come back requesting unblock. They acknowledge that they screwed up and that they were deservedly blocked, but note that it has been a long time - they have changed. If unblocked, the editor plans to correct grammatical and spelling errors. I can see a case here for unblocking, but am not willing to pull the trigger on such a gamble without getting some further input. The blocking editor (User:Gwernol) retired in June 2009. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support unblock People can change a lot in four years - give him some WP:ROPE and see what he does with it. If the vandalism does reoccur, reblocking is no big deal. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. No evidence of socking; seems like a good WP:OFFER case. From the username, I'm guessing that the user was 16 when the vandalism began and that he's 21 now, which can make a huge difference. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Though I did not ask about the user's age, your analysis matches my own - and is precisely why I raised the issue here. God knows what a douchebag I would have been had I been an editor here at 16. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Four years is a long time. I say we give em a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - seems easy enough to monitor if it's not genuine. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock (Non-administrator comment) - 17 vandalism edits 4 years ago... Excellent candidate for a standard offer without prejudice to reblocking if vandalism re-occurs. Salvidrim! 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock per standard offer. KTC (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Indeed, 4 years later is well beyond the standard offer. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sure. I guess he must really like the username; I'm sure no one would ever have noticed if a user with a couple of dozen edits from half a decade ago created a new account, even if it would technically have been block evasion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as someone who began his own Wikipedia career as a 17-year-old IP vandal, I can understand the editor's regret & maturity. GiantSnowman 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Aircorn.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support absolutely! and we can always reblock him later if issues arise Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indeed someone can change allot in 4 years. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note - I've unblocked Ranger based on the discussion above. Here's hoping we gained a productive contributor today, as opposed to losing yet another. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:32, 4 January 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Hey, everyone! We're about to come out of our holiday period, and could use a little more participation while people are still trickling back, particularly as we're ending the extensions on the candidacies we were doing around the Christmas.

It's a fairly relaxed process, so long as you've read the WP:Featured picture criteria and like looking at artworks, it's worth giving it a try!

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for "Tailsman67"

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 has been discussion on AN/I regarding the latest issue with User:Tailsman67. This user was previously indef blocked for disruption and was considered de facto banned but was later given some rope and allowed back briefly before being idef blocked again. Currently, they have been harassing User:Sergecross73 and block evading via several IPs leading to several range blocks being imposed to deal with him as well as generally disruptive edits on various AFDs and articles. There was a consensus for a formal community ban proposal to be discussed here. For those who haven't been following the drama surrounding this user, please refer to Salvidrim's summary here as well as the ANI linked above. I'm posting this here as I made the initial suggestion for a community ban proposal of this user. Also included for discussion would be whether Tailsman67's latest activity warrants yet another range block. I'll notify the user on their most recently used IP and cross posting to the ANI. Blackmane (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Quick correction -- I do not believe any of the user's IP were ever indef blocked; there was repeated blocks and a number of rangeblocks, however. I would recommend reading the previous AN/I threads found on the summary page, and perusing the various IPs contributions for further clarification. Salvidrim! 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• If any other editors have noticed that "Tailsman67" is not a registered username, I just checked ANI and it appears that it's the name used by an individual editing with the IPs 98.71.62.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 74.178.177.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Also, I corrected your link to the ANI thread, Blackmane. Hope you don't mind. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yea, I fixed the links also, heh. :) Salvidrim! 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Haha, well you actually fixed them the right way.. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for fixing those. It was doing my head in trying to work that bit out and trying to do so late at night after a couple of beers wasn't the wisest idea. I believe the range blocks were 6 month blocks. Blackmane (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. The longest rangeblock was for 6 months. Salvidrim! 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban - Per my comments at the ANI subsection. It's been over a year and over 7 blocks and still no improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Enough is enough. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban - It was only a matter of time. Good riddance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not a productive user, and has been a time sink for far too long. AniMate 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The user has had more than enough chances... sufficient time has been wasted for me to believe there is little probability of this user becoming a constructive part of the encyclopedia anytime soon. However, despite everything, he has shown dedication and occasionally good faith editing, thus I believe in a year or more, a successful return is not out of the question... but we'll see then and there. Salvidrim! 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - more than adequate time has been given for this editor to reform. KillerChihuahua 12:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well you can't say I never tried to help this place but since it's almost the end of the month,oh bye,wait what happens if I see vandalism?Well it doesn't matter if I get banned,all I want you to know is that I tried,thank you Salv for giving me a chance,thanks Serge for helping me out,giving me pointers,and sorry AniMate for not being good enough.98.71.62.112 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(Responding assuming that the above IP is Tailsman67 again) If you become banned, as the above appears likely to do, then you are banned. You should not edit the project for *any* reason. You're likely best off not reading the project either, to avoid temptation. If you see vandalism, you do not get a pass to fix it. Banned is banned. You will be banned from making any edits, helpful or otherwise. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay see you in later unless i get ban,then see you never.But can someone tell me what the mean of disruptive editor means,I keep thinking it means an editor who is unneeded.98.71.62.112 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, if you're blocked, you're already not supposed to be editing as the block applies to a person. A WP:BAN means you've been a disruptive editor after the block as well. It doesn't mean someone who is "un-needed", more like "someone who continuously fails to follow the rules and policies of the site in a manner that make more and more people do more and more work to correct the problems caused by said person" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support - I agreed with the others; We don't need people like him here. Apparently judging from Salvidrim's special page, Talisman67 appears to have a hard-on for his and Sergecross73's edits and makes things hell for them. Banned is indeed banned, you are to be excommunicated and be made a nonperson for all I care. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Banning isn't likely going to make him or her go away. Anyway, I've always opposed banning because the user will most likely go into sock puppets. --Hinata talk 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you read up on this very closely? This user has never had an account, he's always IP-hopping. His entire time here can be classified as a giant case of sockpuppetry (or IP hopping at least), so the fear that it will "most likely go into sock puppets" doesn't make any sense. I can't find the dif anymore, but he has told me before that the only reason he doesn't create an account is because he feels he can avoid any sort of indef block/ban if he never commits to a Username, but instead IP hops. Do you want to reinforce this line of thinking? Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I still fail to see him or her banned when he already cannot edit on his or her account. I always thought banning was useless because Wikipedia has limitations of understanding who really is who when IP addresses can change, bans are generally ineffective. In fact, it probably makes them to vandalize more in my opinion. --Hinata talk 21:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be helpful because it would greatly cut down on the time wasted on his antics. Right now, he shows himself, and then we have to wait until there's 3 or 4 instances of being disruptive, take notes, and present it to an Admin or ANI, and wait for a response/reaction/block. With a ban in place, we can cut straight straight to the chase and block him on sight. No more wasting of the time of constructive editors such as myself. After 7+ cycles of doing this, it's getting rather tiresome, especially when you see it unfold the same way every time. I'm tired of so much babysitting and cleanup. I want to work on content creation, or more pressing Admin stuff, but I can't because every time I turn around he's leaving ludicrous advice on a talk page, saying something nonsensical at an AFD I'm participating in, or making a terrible, sloppy edit on an article I'm trying clean up. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The user has no account. Always different IPs. The ban would greatly reduce time-wasting by making revert-and-block-on-sight unquestionably and swiftly enforceable. The other option would be long-term rangeblocks on his three ranges but I believe that has a higher risk of collateral damage. Salvidrim! 09:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I am in full support of blocking this user indefinitely in order to save the obviously large and tedious amount of effort that has gone into reverting this user's malicious behavior. However, I am not in full support of indefinite IP blocks. Back when I was editing on public computers anonymously, I found it very difficult to edit, as many of my school's computer IP's had been blocked as the result of similar malicious behavior. I understand that he or she is a major problem, but if in fact this user is using public computers (especially at a school, college, university, etc.) it can have the potential of having other indirect consequences. So I propose that, instead of indef blocking all of the IP's, indef block the more-frequently used IP's, and put a range-block on the rest. Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 17:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A ban wouldn't be indef blocking all his IPs or anything, he just wouldn't be alowed to edit, and it would just give us the ability to block him on the spot as soon as we figure out it's him. (Which usually doesn't take long, he typically makes people plenty aware, and even if he didn't, has a certain style of sloppy writing that is easy to identify.) Anyways, I'm pretty sure 1) IP blocks are rarely are indef ones, for the reasons you just explained, and 2) I don't think we'd really even need to go back and block any of the "old" ones, he rarely revisits old IPs. (He described why once. I think it was something along the lines that his Firefox browser had a random IP generator/change thing, and once it changed, he couldn't really go back to the old ones anymore. Or something along those lines.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have heard that Firefox can randomize your IP's. If this is indeed the case, then any type of long-term IP block would be appropriate. Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 05:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, he has no account and had never revisited a previously used IP. The proposal is that the ban could be enforced by, for example, 30-day blocks for any IP he is found using, revert all contribs as per WP:BAN, and do something else until next time, which will be a different IP. Salvidrim! 19:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - User is already defacto banned. Just tag the account banned. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • We wanted something more formal. Even the Admin who declared the De Facto ban, Animate, recommended doing this, and !voted "Support", so I'm not sure I understand you when you say "Oppose"... Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Bans are a waste of time. Also, we should be more welcoming and willing to work with people who don't always agree on everything. Perhaps mentorship is preferable. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      • We've already tried that. He's been around for well over a year, where he has been given many opportunities. After his 6 month block expired, a few months ago, I gave him one last shot and tried to help him, and he just resorted back to his old ways. That's why we're back at ANI/AN regarding him. The problem isn't about "agreeing on things", it's about his lack of willingness, or ability, to comprehend what the most very basic concepts of Wikipedia are. "Disagreements" aren't an issue; as far as I can remember, consensus has been against him literally every time. It's that I'm tired of all the warnings, cleanup, and babysitting. Your comments show you've done little to nothing to understand this particular situation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We should be more inclusive and less bitey. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand that you oppose here because you believe the user is already banned, which isn't correct, since no community consensus supports that (before this discussion)? I'd like to know, regardless of AniMate's declaration months ago (but in light of his Support here, as well as that of others), if you believe the user is constructive to the project? Over a year of welcoming and mentorship failed to change anything in the user's behaviour. Salvidrim! 02:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• User is defacto banned because no administrator is willing to unblock. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm confused by your comment -- there is no current block I am aware of. Salvidrim! 03:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• He's not currently blocked, and even if he was, I don't understand what you'd be getting at for this, why this would support your stance. (Quite frankly, if you hadn't written "Oppose" at the beginning of your first comment, I wouldn't even understand your stance at all. Your comments are all over the place. Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• What part of "bans are a waste of time" do you not understand? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• You sure seem to be quite comfortable with frittering away even more time in your quixotic efforts to fight them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as the unfortunate but logical and necessary result of actions leading to this point. --Nouniquenames 15:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed in making community ban official

So, there seems to be a lot going on here at AN today, so I understand if this isn't first priority, but I just wanted to point out that it seems like discussion is winding down, and there's unanimous support for a community ban for Tailsman67 and all of his IPs. I'm just requesting help with finalizing this, partially because I've never done that aspect of of things before, and partially because of being "involved". Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator needed

The above discussion has been open for over a week. A closing by an uninvolved administrator would be appreciated. AniMate 02:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this uninvolved admin is going to declare a consensus in favor of a ban, what account would they be banning? This one in Salvidrim's user space? That seems very odd to this not-so-experienced admin; is there precedent for that?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no account, otherwise we could indef-block the master and report IP-socking. We are seeking a social ban of the user behind the edits so that further appearances and edits can be reverted and blocked on sight without need for reports and discussions every time, so as to limit time wasted. I honestly have no idea if there is precedent or not of an issue similar to this. As mentionned, the user was considered de facto banned for a while, but it seemed that declaration wasn't solid enough and we are seeking community confirmation of the banned status of the user. Salvidrim! 02:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bbn23 - This is how I closed a similar situation for a person who goes by the name Peter Judge.--v/r - TP 03:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even if there were an account, a community ban is different from an indefinite block. I'm just reluctant to slap a tag on a page in your user space to ban what appears to be a collection of IP addresses. Perhaps I'm overly cautious, but without more assurance, I'd rather let another admin do it. In any event, I'm about to go off-wiki until tomorrow morning (all this discussion of banning has made me hungry), so I'll check in then to see if someone else stepped in. Added after ec: Thanks, TP, I'll still check in tomorrow morning if this is still outstanding. I don't want to do it quickly now and screw it up.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, TP, it intends seems to be a similar situation. Salvidrim! 03:08, 5 January 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678

I am currently applying to be a member of BAG and input is greatly appreciated.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There really aren't many admin who have the technical knowledge to express an informed opinion. We generally just wait for things to go wrong.©Geni 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

BAG pages are not really that visible, and so it has been part of the policy since time immemorial that nominations have to be broadly spammed all over the place :D Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Time immemorial = July 3, 2008. MBisanz ^talk 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That the time it has been in the bot policy, it was required way before that despite not being in the policy. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Time immemorial means since April 2007 which was when the concept of spamming boards started out :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was back in 2007 when I hated BAG (as did other members of the community). I don't remember if I actually sent it to MFD, but I know someone else did. They (and I) have changed since then. Oh, the good old days... --Rschen7754 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Usurping accounts with a large number of edits

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Large usurp, regarding the appropriate way to handle a request to usurp an account belonging to a now-banned editor with a large number (5500) of edits. The bureaucrats have asked for additional input. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone thinks 5500 edits is a large number? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick read on an unblock 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.

---

Now comes Ranger1991 (talk · contribs), who was blocked indef in May 2008 as a vandalism-only account. The account's history largely bears that out - 17 edits from August 2007 to May 2008, all the sort of juvenile kids-screwing-around flavor of vandalism we've all seen before. Good block, to all appearances. Now, over 4 years later, the editor has come back requesting unblock. They acknowledge that they screwed up and that they were deservedly blocked, but note that it has been a long time - they have changed. If unblocked, the editor plans to correct grammatical and spelling errors. I can see a case here for unblocking, but am not willing to pull the trigger on such a gamble without getting some further input. The blocking editor (User:Gwernol) retired in June 2009. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support unblock People can change a lot in four years - give him some WP:ROPE and see what he does with it. If the vandalism does reoccur, reblocking is no big deal. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. No evidence of socking; seems like a good WP:OFFER case. From the username, I'm guessing that the user was 16 when the vandalism began and that he's 21 now, which can make a huge difference. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Though I did not ask about the user's age, your analysis matches my own - and is precisely why I raised the issue here. God knows what a douchebag I would have been had I been an editor here at 16. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Four years is a long time. I say we give em a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - seems easy enough to monitor if it's not genuine. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock (Non-administrator comment) - 17 vandalism edits 4 years ago... Excellent candidate for a standard offer without prejudice to reblocking if vandalism re-occurs. Salvidrim! 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock per standard offer. KTC (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Indeed, 4 years later is well beyond the standard offer. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sure. I guess he must really like the username; I'm sure no one would ever have noticed if a user with a couple of dozen edits from half a decade ago created a new account, even if it would technically have been block evasion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as someone who began his own Wikipedia career as a 17-year-old IP vandal, I can understand the editor's regret & maturity. GiantSnowman 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Aircorn.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support absolutely! and we can always reblock him later if issues arise Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indeed someone can change allot in 4 years. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note - I've unblocked Ranger based on the discussion above. Here's hoping we gained a productive contributor today, as opposed to losing yet another. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:32, 4 January 2013 (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.

Notification: Global Lock of User:Fête

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.

---

As requested by a Steward, I am notifying enwiki that User:Fête has been globally locked from editing all Wikimedia projects, following persistent abuse across frwiki, frwikt, enwiki, enwikt. I am unsure which template(s) should be applied to his userspace, so I will leave that for someone here to take care of. Salvidrim! 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Indefblocked-global}}, I think.--ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Placed. It should be replaced if we have a globally-locked template, but I don't know of any. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Locked global account}}. Legoktm (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"And there was much rejoicing!" --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 4 January 2013 (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 and talk page protection required

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, can someone please place a protection on my user and talk pages? I seem to have attracted the attention of a complete idiot and I've no doubt it will go on even though I've warned him that I'll go to the police if it continues. I suspect the problem has arisen because I twice challenged an IP who was attacking another user. It looks a safe bet that it's the same person. Relevant diffs are this, this, this, this and this. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Old Lanky (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of those diffs are by you. I only see two IP edits on your user page and talk page. That doesn't necessitate protection yet.--v/r - TP 21:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NLT don't help either. Rutebega (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Frankly, Old Lanky, looking at the comments you've highlighted what I see is you starting by assuming bad faith and then accelerating far past the level of propriety. Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See latest post by the troll who is convinced I am operating two accounts and has the gall to accuse me of being "ill" when by their very nature all trolls are sick, sad inadequate individuals. Even if his allegation about dual accounts should be true, why that should matter when all my edits are bona fide I do not know, but I'm seeing some very strange ideas at work on this site. Same troll has been attacking User:AssociateAffiliate per my challenges to him as listed above. It must be obvious that this is a persistent individual. As for "violating NLT", are you not aware that "trolling" is illegal in GB and that victims of online harrassment are encouraged to report it to the police. If it goes on I will certainly do that and you can stuff your NLT. If you think I am violating site directives by defending myself against personal attacks then go ahead and block my account. I'm beginning to doubt the wisdom of using this site if editors have no protection from the idiots of this world. Perhaps you should investigate a pattern here as the troll must be attacking other people besides AssociateAffiliate and now myself. Is he free to roam at will because the admins are virtually ineffective? What a waste of time this is turning out to be. --Old Lanky (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're not going to provide any diffs of harassment, these are flat-out personal attacks. I leave it to the discretion of the administrator corps to decide whether an immediate block for legal threats is needed (IMHO it is), but if you continue to engage in such incivility without documenting that it is warranted, you'll get yourself blocked for that alone. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Try this one for size and a "footnote" appended a few minutes afterwards. --Old Lanky (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Hey, everyone! We're about to come out of our holiday period, and could use a little more participation while people are still trickling back, particularly as we're ending the extensions on the candidacies we were doing around the Christmas.

It's a fairly relaxed process, so long as you've read the WP:Featured picture criteria and like looking at artworks, it's worth giving it a try!

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Friedman Need help because the editor there continues cursing and using foul language. The indidivual Friedman is a radical extremist and they keep saying cannot refer to him as bad simply because he's alive. Well that isnt what wiki rules are. Please assist. Tellyuer1 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if Tellyuer, having unsuccessfully tried to get the article deleted, is disputing the situation with everyone else at the article; most of the recent edits have been them undoing him, typically referring to WP:BLP or WP:RS, or saying that the revisions are unsourced. Nyttend (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2013 (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.

Cut-n-paste move cleanup at 2012 Hama offensive and Hama offensive (2012-2013)

User:EkoGraf performed a cut-n-paste move of content from Hama offensive (2012-2013) to 2012 Hama offensive, leaving the entire edit history at the former (now a redirect). Could an admin step in and clean this mess up? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

KTC (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

C:SD is a bittie full

Just a quick heads up if anyone wants something to do for the next thirty minutes. — foxj 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM

What the heck is going on with this page's backlog? There are discussions from November that haven't been closed yet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

October even (one of mine). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No snark being slung at Ryulong for even suggesting something should be done about this? Guess being an admin (or at least not being TenPoundHammer) gets you more leeway when it comes to signposting excessive backlogs. 31.6.19.194 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey look! This here edit above is 31.6.19.194's first and only edit? I wonder who he could be? It couldn't be an editor who comes here and demands that things be done, could it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A pertinent observation! Backlogs happen, this is the holidays -- perhaps the ping will help, but in end, it'll all get done eventually. Salvidrim! 09:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Shhh. What 31.6 clearly knows is that the first rule of the drama boards is to never let the truth get in the way of some good snark; applying this rule by alleging that other editors have prioritized snarkiness over constructiveness is just for bonus points. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The backlog at WP:RM has been horrendous for months. On October 24 it was "only" 20, and climbed to over 120, which is where it is now. There just have not been enough users closing them. It likely has been years since it was cleared. We did make it worse for ourselves by encouraging more page moves to use WP:RM instead of just moving the page. Technical moves though - non-controversial ones, gets cleared out every day. We just need someone to step up to the plate and commit to clear out the back log every week, if not every day. Apteva (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to see if there are some good candidates for NACs, but these require clear and unquestionable consensus, as well as the non-existence of the target page... so hardly a majority, I'd expect. Salvidrim! 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been years, but it is usually quite backed up. Every once in awhile it seems someone goes nuts there and closes them all. There is great rejoicing, and then a week later there is a huge backlog again. RM just doesn't get the attention it needs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's a bit of a drag. I just did three old ones, and it took me more than half an hour, including reading, closing, moving, a notification here and there. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• I am happy to report that the backlog is down to "only" 89 today, that is a reduction of 32 in only two days. Great work! At this rate it will be cleared out in less than a week. Apteva (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• I naively said at my RfA that I'd be happy to chip in at RM, and then I actually *read* through some of the oldest ones... and I realized why nobody wanted to close them! I did a few earlier in the week, and I'll take a look at clearing some more out today. —Darkwind (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Basically it is called a backlog because before then they should have been closed, so actually the backlog should never exist. It is set up so there are seven days of debate and then on the ninth day goes into backlog. Everything in the last dated section are closeable. I would recommend checking some of the earlier ones too, there are some that can be closed even in the first day. I close some of the ones that are obvious, but as a non-admin there are many that I can not close, such as this one, but an admin could have a couple of days ago (This article is about the Indonesian island. Bali is a province in the country of Indonesia. The province covers a few small neighbouring islands as well as the isle of Bali.). Apteva (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Backlog is down to 86 today. It looks long but there are several multimoves. Apteva (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

serious map issues

The File:UNSC 2013.PNG has a serious problem as India and Colombia have not been coloured. Sport and politics (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That file is on Commons, so you should raise the issue there with the uploader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I will do. In the mean time I have removed the image from the article. How does one go about raising this on Commons as I have never been on the commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated. Nothing in this decision constitutes an endorsement by the Committee of Rich Farmbrough's use of administrative tools to unblock his own accounts.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @114  ·  01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Peter M. Ferreira Article Deletion & Abusive IP Editor

Can someone please assess this article on Peter M. Ferreira as well as the edits & behavior of the user User_talk:71.232.222.228. The IP editor in question created this vanity page & is now being abusive & destructive to others and has even threatened legal action if their IP is blocked. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The page was created by Silvermann1970 in 2006; this IP has only been editing in the last few days. I'll look into the other issues that you raise. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. I have a static IP from Comcast, so it's possible that this is static too. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the efforts. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Need to unblacklist template title

Could someone please unblacklist Template:Did you know nominations/Shitterton? I need to create it for an April Fool's Day DYK but I'm getting a message that "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Prioryman (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just created it as a blank page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Prioryman (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Need admin to change edit notice

Can we have any admin (or whoever has this permission) change the edit notice for WP:RSN? The change is only one word ("When" => "Before"). We've already changed the wording for the header instructions on the main page of RSN, [28], but we need to change the edit notice to keep the wording in sync. The change seems to be uncontroversial. Discussion is here: Nobody follows the Header instructions. What should we do? Part 2 Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

O'Dea's block by Hex

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Unarchived. I'm removing the archive template, leaving Fluffernutter's archive text below: This is going nowhere good, fast. The block has been undone, status quo is back in place. Everyone, please go back to your corners and your work and try to de-escalate what's turned into a multiple personality-conflict pile-up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Archiving is for when discussion is petering out, not for when it's ongoing but somebody thinks people should "go back to their corners". This isn't a lot like the boxing match the "corners" metaphor implies, anyway, since the parties are unequally matched (=one has a block button). (I'm planning to write something below very soon.) Bishonen | talk 15:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC). I've just undid Hex's block on O'Dea - I see no reason to block and all the reasons to unblock. Didn't contact the blocking admin because with all these negotiations the block might expire and even though it's short this doesn't make it less outrageous. Max Semenik (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Oh no, not again. What is it with admins rushing to unblock without discussion - always a poor move.--Scott Mac 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) The block was blatantly incorrect, and unblocking was obviously the right thing to do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Posting here and getting a second opinion first would have been better. That's all I'm saying. If the block is plainly bad, a couple of others will endorse you and then you are not imposing your judgment over that of the blocking admin. If blocks can be bad judgement (and they can) so can unblocks.--Scott Mac 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC) When the block is so obviously an abuse of admin tools, there's no prior discussion needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Jaw-droppingly bad blocks like this one are best immediately reversed, and discussed later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Well, yes, but... The problem is that one admin's "Jaw-droppingly bad block" isn't another's. With a bad block the blocker has made a bad judgement call - however, humility tells me that when I judge it as such, it is entirely possible I've missed something, or indeed that others would say my judement is bad. So, unless we want one admin simply overriding the judement of another, it is best to take 5 min and come here for a sanity check. If it is obviously bad, you'll get your unblock call endorsed immediately. Much less dramatic than risking the lone gunman stuff.--Scott Mac 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Yeah in general it might be best to come somewhere like here and get a second opinion before undoing a block, but this kind of situation is definitely the exception. This is why WHEEL is worded the way it is, I think. There are cases—like this—where we want the damage from really poor administrative actions to be minimized as much as is possible. It was probably pretty obvious to MaxSem that if the unblock was the wrong move then O'dea was not going to do anything too harmful during the short period of time it would have taken ANI here to come to a consensus to reinstate the block. I think this unblock was the right move, even before coming here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I don't think that this was quite an "abuse of admin tools", but a block for not using edit summaries is clearly unjustified given that no policy requires them, and many experienced editors chose to not sure them. As such, I think Max did the right thing by lifting this block without delay and reporting the matter here for additional opinions on his and O'Dea's actions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC) He hadn't actually "not used edit summaries" - the blocking admin just didn't think one of them was good enough, and blocked when it was pointed out to him that he was wrong about policy. That's abuse in my book. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC) No. Wrong. You're very poor at reading a situation. I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing - I assumed in good faith - the minor edit feature. Advised him of the fact. He responded by blanking his talk page. I checked back later, noticed no change in behavior. Advised him much more strongly that he needed to start using it correctly and that he should not ignore the advice. He blanked it again. Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary, advised O'Dea of that fact and provided - politely - a link to help on how to correctly use the feature. O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with, and leaving a comment with a gibberish edit summary. I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly. O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me. I blocked O'Dea for disruptive editing, exhibited by his interactions with me. Not because he didn't use an edit summary. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Your comment prior to blocking was "Keep taking the piss and see what happens" - he wasn't taking the piss, he was pointing out that a) policy does *not* require good edit summaries, and that b) you were not perfect regarding edit summaries yourself. The block looks to me like it was out of spite. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC) You look wrongly. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I don't think it was out of spite; sometimes blocks are just bad blocks, and people need to learn from them. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I don't see the incivility/PA; none of the comments were severe enough to justify any action. I think it's a matter of interpretation whether this is ok: [29], personally I think it's fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC) As far as I am aware there is no requirement for edit summaries to make sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I thought we stopped even posting stats about edit summary usage on RfA talk pages... Snowolf How can I help? 23:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Before forming an opinion on this matter, readers should examine in the edit history what actually transpired, and not accept Hex's sanitised version of what he would like you to believe. This was inexcusable bullying followed by punishing the user with a block because he tried to stand up for himself. O'Dea is a committed content builder who had a clean block log. He has far more experience in content building than Hex has. As usual on admin boards, little interest is shown in redressing an assault like this on a valuable content builder. The focus is merely on protecting the sanctity of admins, however bad. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Hex, let me tell you about best practice: never block for attacks against yourself. (Of course don't block at all for something as un-attacky as this was, but that's another matter.) There's no rule that says you're not allowed to, but it's best not. And when you see a user post something "clearly intended to anger me", then don't oblige them, for goodness sake! Don't get angry and block in anger! You're supposed to be the bigger man in such exchanges. Not just the man with the big gun. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC). Thanks for the comments. For the record, there was no anger involved, as much as drama queens like Epipelagic would like to make out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Holy cat among the pigeons, Batman! Blocked for repeatedly misusing the minor edit box, something in which virtually no one pays any attention to, by an administrator who was completely, 100% involved? I've seen Hex's name around quite a bit lately and I generally like the guy, but this is a pretty colossal lapse in judgment. I sure hope he has no intention of repeating that kind of mistake again, because it actually does have a bit of a chilling effect on those who don't waste any time worrying about such arbitrary things (like myself). Kurtis (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Response to Hex by O'Dea The following are my observations about Hex's comments, above, time-stamped at 23:48, 29 December 2012: Hex: "I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing ... the minor edit feature." Reply by O'Dea: This is a red herring. Hex did not cite it as a factor in blocking my edits. It is not relevant at all to what he did. "He responded by blanking his talk page." It is my talk page. I maintain is as I please. In the past, I used to carefully archive my talk page periodically, but more recently I concluded that it was not worth the effort to me – the amount of talk traffic is normally very low. If I or anyone wants my talk history, it is there in the page history. My present default is to clean my page fairly often, and I will remove the latest conversations on it soon. This is none of Hex's business at all and is not a factor in deciding to block another editor. This is another red herring, and Hex took it upon himself to interpret my neutral page clearing action as an attack upon him, which it was not, as my talk page history shows that I clear it often. The WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED policies were explained to Hex by another editor just two months ago and he demonstrated in his reply that he understood them, yet here he is again pretending that he has a hard time understanding policies when he complains that I cleared my talk page. Once again, he is guilty of selective narrative and inconsistency. "Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary." This is a feeble attempt to make something out of nothing. Edit summaries are not compulsory, nor is there a threshold quality to be sustained. In short, my edit summaries are no business of Hex's. In any case, anyone with time on his hands who wants to trawl through my edit summary history will find precious little to complain about, and even if such an archaeologist personally despised my edit summaries, there is no binding policy concerning them. There is advice about edit summaries, and I normally summarise my edits and do so fairly meaningfully. My record speaks for itself. Hex threatened me with a block already on only his second visit to my talk page. He likes to increase the pressure rapidly. He said I would be blocked from editing until I could demonstrate that I understood the point he was making. I resisted the temptation to reply to his provocative and bullying talk of blocking with the first thought that struck me which was that, if I was blocked, I would not be able to demonstrate any kind of article editing behaviour at all. But I exercised patience and simply ignored him, and made no reply about the patent absurdity of his logic. "O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with". This is sour grapes because I found an example of Hex failing to match his own misplaced standards. The word "grubbing" is truly an example of the kind of bad faith that Hex implied was not his style when he lectured me sanctimoniously about good faith on my talk page. "I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly." This is a self-serving re-interpretation and sanitization of what Hex actually said, which was, "Keep taking the piss and see what happens". That was a direct threat, and one which was expressed in less careful language than Hex is using now that his actions are under scrutiny. "O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me." I invite anyone to read my comment which pointed out Hex's inconsistency and directed him to read the edit summary advice at Wikipedia Help. It is clear from this whole fiasco that he did not understand the official position so my direction to him to read it was germane. I also asked him to cite exactly the transgression he thought I had committed, and I invited him to come back to discuss it. He has chosen to interpret this as "an inflammatory comment" – but that is his problem. In his latest comment about me elsewhere, Hex has said, "From my prior interactions with the user, I was unconvinced of their commitment to beneficially interacting with the rest of the community." Leaving aside the flustered grammar, Hex's talk of "commitment to beneficially interacting with the rest of the community" is truly meaningless and irrelevant gobbledygook from a man finding himself embarrassed and in a corner. Hex just blew up because I pointed out his inconsistency in a way he could not wriggle out of, and he further believed, wrongly, that edit summaries are mandatory, and that I was wrong, but he was the one who misunderstood. He also misunderstood how to administer a situation like this one, and misunderstood when, and when not, to block other editors. There are, so far, ten editors who disagree with Hex's actions, on this page and at my talk page. No other editor who has examined the narrative has yet come forward to support Hex's position. I am entitled in the circumstances to repeat my demand that Hex withdraw the lie that I was "taking the piss", as the facts do not support this hostile and self-serving insinuation. — O'Dea (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC) TL;DR. Looks like a nice dramatic reading. I can spot someone taking the piss from a mile away; it takes far worse than the likes of you to get my gall up. Your mental picture presumably has me howling like a monkey and hurling the keyboard across the room, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. I will admit, however, to momentarily raising an eyebrow and putting down my cup of tea. It's possible that I may have even emitted a small sigh. Anyway, feel free to demand whatever you want. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Hex, I think the people assuming you did this out of blind rage are simply giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to imagine anyone fit to be an admin would have made such an awful block without something like the kind of furious, face-reddening anger that makes it hard for one to see straight. Arguing that you were not in a state of rage is not helping you. Arguing that this was the result of careful consideration and the kind of decision you come up with at your best is not helping you. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Oh dear, O'Dea... please don't expect the courtesy of a reply. Admins do not make errors. You and I are members of the unruly, and we really must be put down or ignored. The mere fact you had the presumption to come to Wikipedia and add content is proof enough that you are uppity. If Hex was one of the unwashed he could be arbitrarily sanctioned (if it amused just one other admin). But he's not, he's in the group that is here to arbitrarily sanction you. More to the point, your thinking on abuse is wrong. You should learn to chant the admin mantra, "the only admin abuse is abuse of admins". Many admins are keen on using their own particular idea of "civility" as a weapon for smashing content builders. This is a splendid weapon, almost impossible to challenge, and they have been practicing lately on each other. But it is not a weapon a lowly content editor may use against an admin. It's like the samurai's sword; only the samurai may use it. Hex's behaviour and punishing block may seem a gross breach of civility. It is not, as the non-action on this board will shortly prove. Admin behaviour towards a content builder never lacks civility. Hex may discipline you at his whim. As a content builder you may grovel, but not grizzle. The best content builders have left or are leaving, like rats perhaps, since content builders are treated like vermin here. Wikipedia is spiralling in deadly ways as unskillful administrators destabilise it. Hex's hubris, his clear belief he is entitled to behave the way he does, is a symptom of that. In time, if this trend continues, Wikipedia will degenerate into a comic book Conservapedia for the impoverished, with ingratiatingly polite overlords feasting on hapless content builders that mistakenly stumble into its maw. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Having fun, are we? — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) [At this point user:Fluffernutter closed this thread with: "This is going nowhere good, fast. The block has been undone, status quo is back in place. Everyone, please go back to your corners and your work and try to de-escalate what's turned into a multiple personality-conflict pile-up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)" [Inserted for context, Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)] Really? The status quo is not "back in place". A content builder now has an undeserved block log and has been subjected to inappropriate abuse by an admin. Nothing has being done to reasonably redress this. Are you really endorsing this thread, Fluffernutter, as an exemplar of the way admins now handle content builders? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I am endorsing nothing here other than the fact that the thread was turning nasty very quickly and that I personally believe it would be wise for all parties to try to cool down rather than keep hammering away. I can't force you to do that, I can only recommend. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Well... as I predicted. there it is. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) So: no integrity, no withdrawal, no apology, no guts. Noted. — O'Dea (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Comment to Hex about their replies in this thread Hex, the arrogance of your replies in this thread is terrible, especially the reply to O'Dea above, "TL;DR" and all. (Your block was terrible, too, but I think you've already been told that.) Really, O'Dea responded once, in self-defence after being blocked — unreasonably blocked, if the deafening consensus above is to be believed — and you, the blocking admin, couldn't take the time to read it? The last passage of the essay WP:TL;DR might interest you: 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. I'll charitably assume you didn't mean the "didn't read" literally, but only as the kind of attempt to discredit which the green quote describes, and a way to express your contempt of "the likes of you" and their "demands" (your italics). If your demeanour is a symptom of burnout, Hex, please consider taking a break, and coming back refreshed. If it represents your actual view of admin responsibilities, I'm sorry to see you're not open to recall. Would you consider standing for a new RFA? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC). I'm really quite shocked the way Hex has responded here. The block reason was "Ignoring repeated administrative requests to properly use the edit summary feature, and responding to same by attempting to needle the admin making the requests", which is essentially for (a) failure to obey a policy that doesn't even exist, and (b) daring to point out the admin's error. In my view, this is clearly abuse of admin tools. An admin with integrity would be expected to accept their error and apologise, especially after the unequivocal consensus that Hex was wrong, and that is really what I was expecting to see from Hex here. Instead, we see him digging in and entrenching his unjustifiable position, downplaying what he actually said (vis "I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly" versus his actual words "Keep taking the piss and see what happens"). And then in response to O'Dea's accurate, justified and clearly presented explanation of what actually happened, we got a condescending and contemptuous "TL;DR" response. This is typical of the arrogance of some of the bad old admins who seem to think they have carte blanche to arbitrarily impose their authoritah, and that "ordinary" editors should shut up and not talk back. Judging by this display, Hex is not fit to be an admin, and if we had a more workable route for requesting admin recall, I would be pursuing it. So Hex, as you steadfastly reject what some of your fellow admins here are telling you (and I see none supporting you), I have to join Bishonen in asking if you will stand for a reconfirmation RfA? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC) While Bish's and BsZ's identification of an issue is spot on if incomplete -- there's also the drama queen PA on Epipelagic -- the correct remedy is not an unlikely-to-be accepted challenge for a reconfirmation Rfa. I'm not aware of prior screwups by Hex, so I think feedback from AN should be sufficient; if not, RFC/U should be the next step. NE Ent 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Feedback from AN should be sufficient if the editor is willing to accept it, but Hex clearly is not. And if an editor is not willing to listen to valid criticism, the entirely voluntary RFC/U process is an utter waste of time (though I suspect you are right that a request to consider a confirmation RfA will fail, I think we need to suggest that option). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC) It is unknown whether Hex will accept the feedback here or not; what matters is not whether Hex posts some sort of admission but what actions they take in the the future. Clearly O'Dea has received the support of the community in validating the block was wrong, which is good. Telling Hex they erred and explaining why we think so is good; berating and badgering beyond that is not. See also Editors have pride; although it was written for a different context the underlying concepts apply. NE Ent 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC) (Regarding pride, Proverbs 16:18 contains sound words - no religious affiliation on my part implied). Hex has actually rejected the feedback here so far, at least at the time of his last comment. Whether he continues to do so is currently unknown, and as Bish suggested, there are (at least) two viable options - Hex really can either accept the feedback and maybe take a break for a while, or he can continue to argue that he was right. If he chooses the latter option, then further action is required, and a reconfirmation RfA to allow the community to decide would seem like a relatively speedy and honorable way to proceed. Given Hex's apparent contempt for the opinions of others so far, I'd welcome your suggestions for a better way to proceed (given that RFC/U is entirely voluntary and cannot work if the editor in question will not consider its validity). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC) The most viable and least disruptive option is the thread winds down -- the archive bot always get the the last word -- and Hex doesn't make inappropriate blocks in the future. That said, I don't think a shut the discussion up close tag is appropriate here, lest Hex and or other editors decide they have something to say.. NE Ent 20:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC) As in archived = swept under the carpet? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Give it a rest. If admins are seriously discussing the best way to get a fellow admin desysopped, or eligible for desysopping, there's no need to make vague allegations about the cabal covering its own ass. Well, there's never a need to make vague allegations about the cabal covering its own ass, but this is an especially inappropriate case. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Goodness, either you are joking or you radically misunderstand what is happening here. Hex will not respond and the matter will simply be dropped. This is not just some random happenstance. This is how it works here, and why the editors who are best at writing the encyclopedia are increasingly being discarded. Bishonen and Boing! are exemplary admins doing the best they can, and we are lucky we still have admins left of their calibre and humanity. But there are about 700 active admins, and it seems that Bishonen and Boing!, in this thread, are the only ones willing to champion the rights of content editors to some dignity. Wikipedia has already sunk into a destructive pit and become a playground for admins with decidedly other agendas. As a result, the usual default action here will happen, which is no action. Admins generally may be as incivil as they choose towards content editors. It's true that two admins were recently (and absurdly) blocked for incivility, but that was because they were incivil towards another admin, not another content editor. Generally the ultimate act of incivility, the most humiliating and hurtful thing to do to a content editor is to block him or her. Worst is the indefinite block, which specifically aims at making the editor grovel. Right now, a move is underway at WP:BLOCK to rewrite the blocking policy so the block noose can be tightened more around the content editors neck. In this thread, an admin who recently achieved celebrity with his terminal block of Malleus Fatuorum, is charging ahead, calling for multiple blocks and the widespread use of indefinite blocks without warnings: If I see that someone has been blocked for edit-warring before and I'm thinking about blocking him for edit-warring again, I see no value in warning him again... I'd block a handful of users rather than fully protect a page in nearly all instances... most of the blocks I give in such situations are indefinite. Wikipedia's content editors are generally too good for the quality of the admin system. Most content editors have their heads down writing the encyclopedia, and do not realize, or want to realize, what is actually happening here. Anyway, this thread will no doubt be closed now on the grounds that matters like these are irrelevant on an administrators board, as indeed they seem to be. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC) If this thread goes through to the archive with no acknowledgement from this admin that he has behaved badly, I'll take it to ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I have never entertained the idea that administrators can or should be perfect 100% of the time; however, when administrators take action, they must be open to discussion on those actions. Recently, I came across an administrator who misused some tools. The issue was discussed and resolved, the administrator apologized and assured that the event in question would not occur again. I have no problem with that. In this case, Hex has been unwilling to discuss his actions and accept that the block was incorrect. This is wholly inappropriate for an administrator and a personality trait that isn't suited to the extra tools. I would like to see this go to ArbCom. Ryan Vesey 22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I think I've got a decent amount of street cred for supporting the desysopping of admins who have a history of doing this kind of thing, but I think going to ArbCom right away, if we don't get an "acknowledgement", is premature. For one thing, demanding apologies is a mug's game. For another, I really doubt ArbCom would take the case after just this one incident. A better approach is probably to note that if it happens again, it will go to ArbCom, and point to the two recent cases where this type of thing has resulted in a desysop the admins in question ended up leaving due to the threat of a desysop (correction, I had my fact wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)), once it can be shown to be a pattern. This was clearly a bad block, and a really disappointing reaction to universal criticism of it, but I suggest staying focused on the future, and not trying to back Hex into a corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Others have covered this below but because you are addressing my use of "acknowledgement" I should clarify that I'm not talking about an apology. I'm looking for simple recognition that his behaviour, surrounding the block and the block itself, was unambiguously bad. This is, after all, as far as I can see, the unanimous view of all here. I would certainly like to hear from anyone who thinks it was not bad. Without that acknowledgement, it would be irresponsible to leave him with the bit. We owe it to the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC) While an apology would be appreciated, I don't believe in demanding them either; however, I do believe that administrators should be required to discuss any administrative action they take. While this is a volunteer project, I would say there's consensus that taking an administrative action must be accompanied by a willingness to discuss that action otherwise that action should not be taken. Hex failed to respond to O'Dea, responding with a TLDR and saying he could "spot someone taking the piss from a mile away". I understand your point Floq, but this just isn't the type of behavior I want to see from somebody who has the ability to block someone. Luckily, it doesn't appear like Hex uses that tool much. Ryan Vesey 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think it's anything to do with apologies either, it's about trust going forward. And if Hex still believes that what he did was right, despite all the feedback he's getting, then he does not have our trust as an admin - anyone at RfA today who pointed to Hex's recent action and said it was fine would be roasted. It's fine for someone to have a bad day and make a bad call due to stress or other emotion, but we need to see a positive reaction to feedback - not an entrenched insistence that their actions were calm and justified. But in practical terms, if Hex does not respond positively, there's nothing we can do right now - because there is no de-sysop request mechanism that will deal with a case like this. As you say, Floquenbeam, ArbCom will only deal with cases when there are multiple examples of bad behaviour - I think there needs to be a mechanism that will deal with a single but unrepentant example, but there isn't one. So while I flatly reject Epipelagic's accusations that we (as admins) are trying to sweep it under the rug, the current weak system of redress does make it look that way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Where did I generally accuse admins, and you for that matter, of trying to "sweep it under the rug"? I said nothing of the sort. In fact I specifically said that you were an exemplary admin doing the best you can. In rely to NE Ent's wish that nothing should be done and his statement that "the archive bot always get the the last word", I queried "As in archived = swept under the carpet?". Elsewhere I said that the default position is to do nothing. The reality is that that is the defacto position. It doesn't just "look that way", it is that way. Do you think that is incorrect? Why are you taking exception? You attacked me before in a similar manner, and I can only assume you are simmering with some anger you have about my views or attitude (real or imagined). If that is the case then I invite you to ask me about it somewhere so we can see if there is any substance to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Apologies for my misunderstanding. (As for any past interaction between us, I'm afraid I don't remember it, sorry - I have to confess I only vaguely recognise your name) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I agree; for me the issue isn't so much that there was no apology, it's that Hex still seems to believe this block was remotely reasonable. They're probably related, though, since presumably there is no apology because Hex still believes that this block was fine. As boing points out, there isn't much we as admins can do: threaten to indef Hex if this happens again? Hex isn't in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall so that pretty much just leaves us with ArbCom, and anyone can take this to ArbCom. I'm not quite as sure as others seem to be that arbcom won't take the case; the new panel might be a bit more willing to deal with the perennial complaint that desysopping is too hard... HaugenErik (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I was curious about that. Could the new ArbCom declare that they will entertain requests for desysop? They'd accept or decline in the same manner as normal requests, but there would be fewer hoops to be jumped through before taking it to ArbCom because there aren't other desysop venues to take care of it. Ryan Vesey 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Well, they wouldn't need to make any declarations, would they? They would either accept the case (possibly in response to the complaints about it being too hard to desysop) or they wouldn't (because there aren't "multiple examples of bad behaviour"). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I hesitate to post this, as I think all I'm about to do is needlessly complicate everyone's life, but... Note that this looks very similar to the current situation. For those of you thinking about ArbCom, this is good news (beginnings of a pattern) and bad news (from November 20092008. (oops)). I'd still be surprised if an ArbCom case was accepted, but no longer think it's impossible. At this point, I'd like confirmation from Hex that he won't block anyone except clear vandals and spammers, something he's been doing without apparent incident for many years. To get me to not care anymore, he doesn't need to agree he's in the wrong, just that he doesn't agree with the Community's opinion, and is therefore going to skip that aspect of adminship. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Hmm, so he's done this kind of thing more than once - and he wouldn't accept being told it was a bad block last time either. I'm still not convinced that ArbCom would act on "once every three years" bad admin actions, but it must increase the chance slightly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think I can support that, Floquenbeam. I have very serious concerns about this person's attitude. Unless I see an acknowledgement that his swaggering arrogance and contempt towards O'Dea and his block of O'Dea were unacceptable here, we should relieve him of the bit. As it stands, I can't trust him to deal fairly with borderline spammers and vandals. I don't trust his judgement at all, and it amazes me you're willing to. Can I recommend taking a look at his three RfA's? [30][31][32] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Well I am just giving my opinion, Anthony, I'm certainly not telling you what to do or what to think, i hope I haven't given that impression. Yes, I just finished looking at the three RFA's (including, in RFA #2, a promise to be open to recall if that RFA passed. but it didn't). Yes, I would have opposed all three. Yes, this incident gives me great pause, and if there was a reconfirmation RFA today with no agreement to stay away from this kind of block, I'd oppose. But there is a lot of good work he's done over the years, including good admin work, and I'm hoping some kind of trajectory other than the SchuminWeb or EncycloPetey cases can be worked out, so that we (Hex, and Wikipedia) don't mutually burn all our bridges. This does appear to be the only area I see problems in; if I could convince myself he won't do that one particular thing anymore, then I would consider his adminhoodness a net positive, and move on to find other more pressing problems more in need of solving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Is there a page somewhere that lists the blocks he's made? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Try this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Or, more elegantly as a wikilink: Special:Log/block/Hex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Oh yes, that's prettier (I just looked at my own and then changed the URL) ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC) There's this from 23 December 2012. Where Hex blocked Twehringer thesociety (talk · contribs) for an unspecified user name violation, without discussing it first, as the policy recommends. This user name breaches no policy. Username policy says, " The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below. [...] usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as 'Mark at WidgetsUSA', 'Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", 'WidgetFan87', 'LoveTrammelArt', etc. Two inappropriate blocks in ten days. Hex, can you explain the rationale behind this block, and why you didn't discuss it with the editor first? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Given the username block and the 2008 block Flo references above I do think we need to hear from Hex or push this to ArbCom. NE Ent 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC) My thanks to Floquenbeam, who is the only person to have had the common courtesy to alert me by email to the current status of this thread. I happen to be on vacation. My reply will be presented tomorrow. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I alerted you on your talkpage when I un-archived the thread on 29 December 1 January. But if you're not interested enough to enable the "e-mail me when my talkpage is changed" functionality when you go on holiday with something like this pending, then naturally that's somebody else's fault (just like everything else). Bishonen | talk 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC). Hex edited after Bish's notification so they should have seen the orange message bar. NE Ent 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) This just keeps getting worse. KillerChihuahua 05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Reply I'll start by addressing the two blocks mentioned above. At the time of the 2008 block I didn't fully understand about avoiding tools when involved in a content dispute. Subsequently, I did. You may also notice that I managed to accidentally pass 3RR on the same occasion. I've not done that since, either. Looking at it again, the user name block was in fact incorrect. It should have been a spam-only block. Twehringer_thesociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s only contributions were to a spam article, The Society of Leadership and Success, an organization that they are the director of communications for.[33] That article itself is, I now notice, a copy of the user space page User:NSLS92617/National Society of Leadership and Success, itself deleted as spam. That user name clearly alludes to the Irvine, California branch of this organization,[34] and is a clear promotional name. I'll let somebody else deal with that. In this case, I evidently managed to conflate two block reasons — one of which I obviously misremembered. I'm not sure that I recollect ever making a user name-based block before, for that matter. I've now corrected the error on the user's talk page. Now I'm going to have my say about what's been happening on this noticeboard. Whether you read it or not is up to you — if it's too long for you to bother with, that's fine with me. Some of the participants here appear to think they're running a drumhead court martial. They're not. This is a kangaroo court; trial by auto-da-fé. It's certainly the first time that I've encountered somewhere that people are put into the stocks in the village square and then expected to account for themselves while being pelted with rotten fruit. Someone above uses the word bullying; what breathtaking hypocrisy. To pick another metaphor, shooting fish in a barrel is easy because the barrel is full of fish. This venue has managed to create the complete inverse by putting one fish in a barrel and surrounding it with gunmen. I've been called out on mistakes before. When people have talked to me on a one-to-one basis — that's why user talk pages exist, in order for direct and efficient communication — I've always been more than happy to talk through and consider my actions. If the responding administrator had chosen to leave me a message (perhaps "I believe the block was bad and wrong because..., can you explain yourself and are you willing to lift it before I do?") then there would have been the almost complete certainty of a diametrically opposite conclusion to events in every respect. However, he chose the single most dramatic course (including instantaneously undoing the block with the marvelous comment "WTF?" - how indicative of a bona fide attempt to resolve an issue) and parachuting me into here. With the exception of Floquenbeam emailing me, as I mentioned earlier, nobody has attempted to talk to me outside this obloquious vipers' nest. That does not include Anthonyhcole — the self-appointed Torquemada of this particular inquisition (who, incidentally, left me a talk page comment insulting me and calling other editors "morons" before deleting it a moment later — class act). Who is Anthonyhcole? Who knows. I'm not sure why someone that isn't an administrator would choose to hang around on what is ostensibly the administrators' noticeboard, unless they derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. It certainly isn't due to any formal role. Some people might respond to that kind of thing by digging through his record to try and have a mud-slinging match - much as he's decided it's somehow appropriate to present my RFAs as some kind of bizarre "evidence". I shan't descend to that level. My penance is also apparently expected to contain replying to massive slabs of mistaken accusations based on conjection and assumption, long after the fact of my actions being undone and judged and my being given a public whipping. Even if I did, whatever I said can and probably will be challenged by every drive-by Joe McCarthy wannabe that feels like taking a pop because they're convinced they know the contents of my own mind better than I do. What a great use of time and effort. Not to mention the presence of people who apparently choose to latch onto discussions in this space in order to use them as a springboard for presenting their own personal conspiracy theories. This environment appears to attract the officious in droves. Some are even so astonishingly self-important that they think, wrongly, that they can demand my immediate participation in this rotten caucus. Even after I've pointed out that I'm on vacation. And even threatening me with going to ArbCom if I fail to respond to their demands, in whatever pressing timescale they've conjured into existence. Presumably these threats of ArbCom involvement without prior formal dispute resolution are making the claim of the necessity of exception 1, "emergency action to remove administrator privileges"? That would presumably put me on a par with EncycloPetey, who Floquenbeam mentioned. I looked up the details of his desysopping, and frankly I reject the comparison. I've only had the administrators' noticeboards on my watchlist for a few months, but have barely looked at them in that time. I now understand why I frequently see them referred to as "the drama boards". As of right now I'm joining the growing number of administrators that choose to ignore them. My talk page, as always, remains open. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Actually, that username you blocked was not a promotional username. Please read the quotebox just above. You got it wrong. The kangaroo court above involves ten admins and ten editors in good standing. All we've been waiting for is an acknowledgement from you that your block and your treatment around the block of O'Dea was inappropriate. That's all. I don't think you have the right temperament for adminship, I'm afraid. So I'm filing a request at RfA that they desysop you. I think this is such a clear case that it would be detrimental to the project to waste time on other processes. Perhaps ArbCom won't see it that way. We'll find out. I'll let you know when I've filed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC) If I was one to block for personal attacks, which I'm not, you'd find yourself blocked now, Hex, for the way you speak to Anthonyhcole above. Do you take WP:AN to be some kind of free zone where you get to say the first thing that comes into your head no matter how shitty it is? Or where you can express any amount of rudeness, contempt and ABF to anybody as long as they're not an admin? Because I notice there's a bit of a difference in the way you address the different categories of users in this thread: you speak reasonably civilly to the admins — within shouting distance of civilly, anyway — or, well, you avoid attacking them individually, anyway — while there's apparently nothing you won't say to a non-admin, from TL;DR to Torquemada. Therefore, I'm also beginning to think we should let ArbCom look at this. They may not indeed want to remove your tools for basically one bad use of them; but they should get a chance to sanction you just as a user, for generally appalling battleground behaviour. Then you can call them Joe McCarthy wannabes and tell them they must derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC). Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request_to_desysop_Hex --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) For the record, Twehringer thesociety is not a promotional name. It's a personal name. The person's name is Tracy Wehringer, and xyr electronic mail address, given on press releases by the organization concerned as a contact, is twehringer@…. It's rather sad to see a person who straightforwardly uses xyr own name and the organization that xe works for suffering for supposedly having a "promotional name". I hope that this doesn't apply to account names like Okeyes (WMF), too. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons and the redirects of doom™

The above thread leads nicely onto this - since the article was deleted, Legobot (talk · contribs) has tagged all the redirects to that page as G8s despite them all containing histories that probably need(ed?) to be kept for licensing. Are we okay to delete them now that the target has been nuked? — foxj 00:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, all pretty much gone now. — foxj 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming there is consensus for G8 deletions of redirects to a deleted page, otherwise I doubt a bot would've been approved for the task. Salvidrim! 02:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I know of no such consensus, and would oppose it. Redirects to a deleted page can indeed contain valuable history. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick investigation shows nothing like this on Legobot's page, nothing listed recently for BAG, and these G8 taggings don't seem to have taken place prior to mid-December. The taggings all look like valid g8 tags, but the end result is that a lot of material--the histories under the redirects--is being lost when articles that had been redirect targets are deleted. I don't think that such wholesale purging of otherwise-inoffensive content was what was intended by G8, even if it does seem to fall within the scope of G8's current wording. Jclemens (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Article history is metadata, not content. Why would we need to preserve the article histories of MSG mobile weapon articles that were merged into one, but eventually ended up in the bitbucket? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Article history of merged items is *content*. Consider that if any such deleted article is ever undeleted, all the content which ever was merged into it will have broken attribution and violate licensing. Think on that for a sec. Also consider that with the redirects of the merged content gone, we have no way to work backwards from a deleted-and-then-undeleted article to see what content was merged into that article. I don't think a speedy criteria or a bot process should be breaking licensing in such a manner. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Complying with WP:Copying within Wikipedia (with edit summaries and {{Copied}}s) has the benefit of preventing accidental deletions, but it also addresses the situation you describe. Having incoming redirects available is helpful, but identifying non-specific text hidden under one of them is still difficult. The bot tagging helps post-deletion analysis by reducing the interval before G8 is applied. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 20 is what you're looking for. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Dunno why I didn't see that last night. At any rate, it appears to have been properly approved with minimal input and no one considering the licensing implications of the deletions of redirects that were the result of mergers. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Legobot tags using {{db-redirnonebot|bot=Legobot}}, leaving an admin to evaluate the tags and delete if appropriate. User:RHaworth deleted 26 Gundam redirects and talk pages (1 unrelated page in middle). Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens continued the discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G8 vs. redirected material. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Double redirects

As of right now, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Request template to open a new case redirects to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Template which redirects to Template:Arbreq. This creates a Double redirect. Could an admin please retarget Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Request template to open a new case to Template:Arbreq in order to clear the double redirect? I would do it myself but the redirect is full protected. (Oddly, the template itself is not). The entry itself is also recorded as #36 at Special:DoubleRedirects. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Input requested at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration on whether the current situation be ideal or if we should change around the protections. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we get an admin at WP:Main Page/Errors?

There are two items there that need to be addressed; the older one has been there for more than four hours. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this has now been  Fixed by Orlady.  7  08:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads/Mo ainm

Do not feed the trolls. ArbCom has an email address if you're actually concerned about this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In light of User:Elen of the Roads failure to be re-elected as an arbitrator, I'm hoping that what she's been doing regarding User:Mo ainm can now be investigated. For many months she has blocked, reverted and even checkusered anyone who so much as mentions that Mo ainm is a failed WP:CLEANSTART - his previous account is not publicly linked from his new one, yet he continues to act in the same way and in the same areas that got him blocked many times under his old identity. If it wasn't for this, Mo ainm's full history would be known to the community, and he would have long ago either been reformed away from being a textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:CPUSH editor into a productive and collaborative one, or he would otherwise by now have fully retired or been banned in the same way as other unreformed editors in this topic area, such as User:Domer48. Elen's explanations for this have always been deficient in terms of evidence, policy or indeed basic fact, with people apparently expected to just trust her. Perhaps this was acceptable when she was an arbitrator, but now that she's failed to be re-elected because what she sometimes thought was right for Wikipedia was not necessarily what the community had trusted her to do or what policy said, a re-examination is in order. In the interests of full accountability, the community need to see an explanation from Elen for this suppression of Mo ainm's full history that is examinable against policy using some actual verifiable evidence, not just her word. If she fails to provide such evidence, I'd expect someone to publicly link Mo ainm to his past account, as policy has always demanded. MaosTheory (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Notified and notified as a courtesy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC) If Mo's previous account was/is banned, then an explanation is due. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, this is MaosTheory's first edit outside of hir userpage. Quacks like block evasion to me... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Sock agenda seems to be related to that of earlier Choctaw9999 (talk · contribs), which was blocked as a sock of Hackneyhound (talk · contribs). Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Your characterization of the reasons that Elen failed to be re-elected doesn't match my view of the events. If she has said before that Mo ainm is not a failed clean start, I see nothing in the recent events that would cause me to question that conclusion. More importantly, if Mo ainm edits productively, then there is no problem, and if not, then it will be addressed. Linking to a prior user name can sometimes speed up a process, or put something in context, but it is not a required step, even if true, to assess the contributions of an editor.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC) While MaosTheory has undoubtedly edited here before, his/her point re Mo ainm is still valid. — Jon C.ॐ 14:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Is it? Clean start doesn't require one to identify previous accounts. Mo ainm's previous account is apparently under no blocks or other form of sanctions, and is unlinked for privacy reasons, so I'm not seeing a problem there. What are the diffs/log entries for abuse by Elen, anyway? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Hackneyhound (MT's sock-master) did/does have a valid point, though. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Which is...? I'm not seeing anything valid in that post. If there are problems with Elen's admin actions, then diffs/logs are needed. It shouldn't be surprising that CU checks and blocks happen a lot for people accusing Mo ainm of trickery; it's apparently the target of a sock farm. In other words, sampling bias (she CUs and blocks people who accuse Mo ainm because they're all block-evading sockpuppets). As for the accusations themselves, the briefest of archive searches turns up Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#User_Mo_ainm's_alternate_account_status, which answers that satisfactorily for me, at least. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC) ...that Mo anim has a highly questionable past that's been hidden from the community. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Although it's not currently under any sanction, Mo ainm's previous account had a pretty extensive block log, by the sounds of things. — Jon C.ॐ 15:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC on RfA

Please see WT:RFA#RfC; The can stops here. I'm calling for an RfC and asking here for closers. I'm open to suggestions on whether the closers play absolutely no role before the actual close, or perform light "housekeeping" while the community puts the RfC together. Wales has suggested he's going to step in and make dramatic changes, so we need to get going on this if it's going to do any good. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the most experienced sysop and so will understand if the community would rather others take this role, but if we're struggling for closers then I'm happy to abstain from the conversation and be one of the closers when the time comes. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to close this as well. I offer my services as well. Housekeeping should be allowed. The RfC should run from 30-60 days based on how big this issue is.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 17:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this. As I understand it the community will have the final say on the founder's proposals and I see no reason to attempt to beat him to it. As for closers, if required I would prefer experienced, vested contributor non-Admin types. Neither of the volunteers fit that bill. Leaky Caldron 17:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I not fit that bill?—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 17:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see the need for this RfC and do not expect anything to come of it - at least not until the founder's proposals are on the table. If by any chance this does become the most important RFC ever I want it to be closed by mature, experienced content creating editor's who's judgement I can trust. Leaky Caldron 18:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So by that comment, you're saying that I'm neither trustworthy, mature, nor experienced. You're the first editor to say that to me.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 19:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me reword that. What is it you see wrong with me?—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Admins are trusted - they have passed the scrutiny of the community at RFA. Non-admins should not be closing this. GiantSnowman 19:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's debatable if non admins shouldn't close it. Leaky Caldron wanted non-admins though.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 19:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You participated in many if not all of the RFA reform discussions last year with 100's of contributions. I have seen your comments in various forums and most recently I saw you entertaining the idea of a run at RFB, notwithstanding that you are still undertaking your RfA mentoring. I just don't think you are suitable for the reasons I have already stated, however you interpret it is entirely up to you. Leaky Caldron 21:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing me with another editor. I only commented on RfA reform at most 20 times not 100s and I hardly participated in all of the discussions towards and I certainly did not entertain the idea of running an RfB especially since they clearly fail if your not an administrator for at least a year. Could you provide some diffs please?—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 22:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Apologies. This discussion about the apparent lack of 'Crats in which you participated confused me. It was consideration of your own RfA that you discussing. [35]. Leaky Caldron 22:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. All is good. I'm totally fine with not closing. I was just curious where you were coming from.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That means admins were trusted then, not necessarily that they're trusted now Jester of the court (sock) 21:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman - non-admins shouldn't be closing a discussion such as the one proposed. One of the main functions of admins is to close contentious discussions and that's what they've been chosen to do via the rigorous current RfA system (please don't take any of that personally, cyberpower). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ain't policy. "There are several ways an RfC can end: the bot can automatically delist the RfC, the RfC participants can agree to end it, or it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor" (emphasis mine). NE Ent 22:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally appreciate your point; I wouldn't for a second argue that it's set in stone. Just giving my opinion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the advantage of having it closed by admins in this particular situation are that they can't be accused of potentially favouring an outcome that would make it easier for them to gain adminship, which may be the case if the closer wasn't already admins. KTC (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetical of course, but this brave new world RfC might conclude that all existing Admins should stand for re-confirmation RfAs. Admins closing that might be in an equally invidious position to your example. Leaky Caldron 22:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I say we shouldn't worry about whether an admin should close this or not until we see what Jimbo has in store for us. As a matter of fact we shouldn't be designating closers at all yet as we can not plan for something that does not yet exist. We can offer to close something, but we shouldn't be deciding yet.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 00:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• If we can get 3-5 closers who are acceptable to everyone, that will make it easier to get people to accept a close for a position that doesn't have overwhelming support ... and as we know, no one position is going to get overwhelming support. Leaky, if people want to try for consensus, let us try. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've closed some tough issues, and have not been involved in the interminable debates over RfA. I'm willing to volunteer for the panel, if there are no objections. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse NE Ent 22:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just to clarify my statement above, I'm willing to volunteer as I've followed the debate but have not participated and so have no vested interest, but if others would prefer someone more experienced I won't be the least bit offended. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The current admin system is deeply destructive towards content building. How the system operates has been under the control of admins for years. It has become a system built by admins for the convenience of admins. If content developers offer constructive alternative approaches on how the admin system might operate, admins encircle and subdue them. So it not surprising admins are asserting this RfC must be controlled and closed by admins only. The "reasoning" is the insulting arrogance that only admins are trustworthy. Content developers are not worthy. That takes us back to where we began. This process is a useless waste of time, and will result only in admins rubberstamping their own system. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No one who's insensitive to inequalities on WP is going to make the cut as a closer for this RfC. People have said a lot about how inadequate RfCs are for tackling tough, community-challenging problems ... one of the inadequacies is that, as long as it's possible I might be a closer, I can't say anything that might reassure anyone about what's going to happen; you just have to make your own judgment, if you're familiar with my history here, that I'm not going to accept an arrogant solution (not because that's my own view, but because there's a solid consensus among Wikipedians against unfair privileges for admins, a consensus that isn't going to be trumped by anything said in this RfC). We know RfCs have deficiencies. We don't have a lot of choice on this one; Jimbo says he'll take action this month. If the community is capable of making a decision, it has to be made and closed, within weeks at the most. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with you as a closer Dank. I was just making a general background statement that someone needs to make. A pessimistic but straight talking overview can be a positive spur to prove the overview wrong. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Lets put the brakes on this thread of a while. This is a radical departure from past RFC practice, and before we select any closers, lets at least know what power we are giving them. To be clear, we are not talking about selecting closers to judge consensus, but to pick a winner amongst proposals that lack it. Monty₈₄₅ 05:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Monty, let me be clear: The reason I'm volunteering here is because I have a lot of experience with difficult to interpret discussions. One possible close is always no consensus, and if that's the outcome, that's the outcome. In that case, we'd wait to see what Jimbo does. But speaking for myself, if there isn't any way to say there's a clear outcome, I won't force one. The job of a closer is to interpret consensus, not to supervote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see some arguments in favor of a close who is not an admin, and I support them. I see some arguments in favor of a close who is an admin, and I support them. Why don't we simply agree that we will have more than one closer, one of which will be an admin, one of which will not.

However, I am puzzled that Dank is suggesting to be one of the closers. I have enormous respect for Dank, but I think it should be a rare occurrence where the initiator of an RfC is one of the closers. And certainly not this one.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The best I can tell, it's moot at this point, but to answer your question ... I said "unless anyone objects". You're objecting, right? - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade; To quote from the discussion at RFA, the proposer of the RFA has stated: I think there's a chance the community will agree to let the closers pick whichever solution seems to have the most support, without requiring consensus, since it's been fairly well established that it's not possible to get consensus on this issue. So we are potentially talking about a close that would implement something without consensus for what is being implemented. I certainly have no objection to you being one of the closers if the prospect of a non-consensus but implement the one with the most support close is taken off the table. Monty₈₄₅ 14:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Geoff Farrow

Howdy. I just noticed these edits. They go against a whole bunch of things besides the MOS and "don't puff up your own resume", but this is a BLP matter of some relevance and possibly urgency, which is why I'm posting here and not on BLPN. I'm about to sign off and don't have the time, opportunity, or inclination to delve too deeply into this and the references for the previous statements, and hope that one of you can pick this up. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. While I've worked on the article before, and I've made one or two quick technical fixes there, I think it's probably best if I leave the substantial work to other people, but I agree with my sense of your concerns entirely. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI Colbert Tonight

Hey all!

I wanted to give you a warning that Jimmy is going to be on on the Colbert Report today and there is a possibility for a direct request for people to think about editing (from one or both of them). I don't think it will be more then we're used to but we should be ready for a possible surge just in case (and hopefully of people with a better intention then some past Colbert's ;) ). Jalexander--WMF 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Batten down the hatches! There's a storm a-coming! — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Block ALL the editors Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Block all the bears! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my... we haven't had such a groundswell since the 4chan raids of 2012... /sarcasam Hasteur (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Brace yourselves, Colbert vandalism is coming.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elephant&action=protect Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is Wales on that show? Isn't Colbert the guy who encourages vandalism? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Jimbo's going to block him in person. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be awesome. If Colbert starts something again, I say we have a thread here proposing that he be banned from editing Wikipedia for life. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's really not that big a deal. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. But it would be fun. It would help an oft-divided community to find a common opponent. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd chuckle if Colbert confirmed the ownership of this account and asked Jimbo to personally unblock him. Tarc (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  If he does get unblocked, I doubt it will last long. Do you think he would edit constructively? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• On second thought, after having watched this, I don't dislike Colbert all that much anymore. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• This, which I found reading our own article on ArbCom, is perhaps the most in-depth coverage the volunteer side of Wikipedia has ever seen. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Damn country restrictions... Salvidrim! ✉ 09:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy seemed less prepared than I thought he would be, considering the lion's den he was walking into. Again. PR gaffe - or brilliant strategic move? As long as those Google searches keep coming to Wikipedia - who really cares? Doc talk 09:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Hex

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

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration concerning Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of O'Dea (talk · contribs). There is no evidence of a significant, recurring problem with Hex's use of his administrator permissions. However, Hex is:

(A) Reminded that he must obey the community's "involved administrators" policy;

(B) Admonished for blocking O'Dea when no block was appropriate; and

(C) Reminded that he must be fully responsive to valid criticism by the community of his actions.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @865  ·  19:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

WP:RFPP

Heavy backlog at WP:RFPP, admin attention needed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We are down to 3 requests now; thx everyone. Lectonar (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Request administrator to review and close AN/I thread on user Darkstar1st involving topic bans

Requesting administrator to close thread. There is a dead tie in the views of users on the idea of a topic ban on political topics for Darkstar1st, there are currently 7 users in favour of such topic bans, and 7 users opposed to such topic bans, as I write this. I would appreciate it if the administrator would make a ruling on the matter of whether topic bans should be applied, or whether they should not. The discussion is here: [36]--R-41 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have actually counted eleven twelve editors who have explicitly supported a topic ban, either on the AN/I or in the RfC/U: RolandR, R-41, TFD, Orange Mike, The Hand That Feeds You, FurrySings, Snowded, Ravenswing, Saddhiyama, Dave Dial, SMcCandish, Assistant N.RolandR (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the thread is closed and that the RFC/U cannot impose any such ban. --Nouniquenames 06:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Babak Khorramdin and Babak (given name)

hi everyone. i and User:Boboszky have an arguments for babak name. we know that babak is arabicised from middle persian name papak. but our sources doesn`t Explicitly say equivalence of babak in arabic and papak in middle persian. his edits is Distortion of academic sources but he does`nt agree. at last, we need an Administrator to judge between us. --Espiral (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• This looks a content dispute, in which case there several avenues you can follow first, such as seeking a third opinion, or going to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Once there, hopefully your issue will be resolved. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for removal of adminship process

• Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new process to allow for removal of adminship through community discussion. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a new user-right group

• Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for administrators to request instead of requesting removal of the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Seeking feedback on CentralNotice proposal

Just a pointer (to keep conversation in one place): I'm looking for feedback on a proposal for a central notice on January 14th and 15th (day 1 is a Wikimedia Shop sale for logged in users and day 2, Wikipedia Day, is a geolocated test for anonymous users to see interest in the shop to fund the giveaways. Current discussion is on Village pump.Jalexander--WMF 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Burden of Proof

Forgive me if this is not the appropriate forum to ask such questions, but I couldn't find the appropriate place. I'm currently in a dispute with some other contributors. They have made a controversial edit, and have not provided any citation to back up their edit. I believe the edit needs to be removed until they cite their sources and a consensus is reached on the talk page. They seem to believe that I must prove my case, and until I do the edit should remain. Who has the burden of proof? Can I remove the edit, even violate the 3 revert rule if necessary, until they make their case on the talk page?--115.94.64.219 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You can see 3RR exemptions; this is not among them. Generally, the proof is on those adding content, but that doesn't mean that you can remove it over consensus. If the material clearly doesn't belong, but (especially) multiple editors are restoring it, you can add a tag to note that it is disputed and start dispute resolution processes on the talk page or the relevant noticeboards. If the material is inappropriate, consensus of a couple of editors is not likely to outweigh policy requirements for verifiability once the broader community is involved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as [37] an IP has been making identical edits to identical sets of articles, and is currently blocked before 115 popped up here, I think there's already ample evidence of edit warring. If the IPs are in fact the same person, I suggest that you cool it. These are almost meaningless edits... you're edit warring over whether "Narcissism" is a category of Individualism and vis versa. I don't see any evidence of actual discussion, just a claim in the comments that "the issue's being debated." This is not how we deal with contentious edits. Honestly, it might be good if an admin took a look at the edit warring history there, because maybe some more action is required. Shadowjams (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Also see this previous ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am the same person as 115.94.64.219. I am not IP hopping. Life just forces me to make use of more than one computer and network. I am trying desperately to move this conversation to the talk page. I will remove the link again, because it is controversial and has not been properly cited according to WP:IRS. Cite your sources and discuss it with me on the talk page and we won't have an problems.--118.36.229.221 (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, this crap again? The discussion stalled out. Though I agree with the IP editor regarding the category, edit-warring is not the answer. It's not something that needs removed immediately, and that means using the dispute resolution process, not unilaterally and repeatedly removing it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP hasn't made any attempt at discussion on Talk:Individualism or Talk:Narcissism since the December 29-31 conversations (except for this [38] comment which they then removed [39]). They have opened a dispute resolution request, but it only includes three editors including me. My involvement in this is limited solely to the edit warring issue. I don't care which way the merits go, and had no part in those discussions. However, my reading of the previous discussion suggests nowhere near any consensus to remove this. The IP is pushing an esoteric reading of including a category.

One of the IPs (same individual, working from 2 IPs, as they acknowledged) was blocked for rather egregious edit warring. With that block in place (14:19 1/6 – 21:19 1/7), the other IP continued the same edits [40], [41], and also after the block expired [42], [43], [44] (however most recent edits by IP were reverted within an hour or so by the IP).

During all of this the IP has filed a DR/N, posted this to AN, been the subject of another ANI thread, and been blocked. All this for a simple category inclusion that up until this point, nobody seemed to find the least objectionable. Strikes me as similar to the issues raised in another recent of editors misunderstanding verifiability—Uncle G explains that best here. The IP needs to get an actual consensus, and if it doesn't go the way they want, then to respect it. But this level of disruption, even if in good faith, needs to stop. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe one should have to get consensus to remove material that is in violation of Wikipedia policy. This is the root of the problem which no one seems to want to address definitively. If controversial material is not properly cited, thus in violation of WP:IRS, shouldn't it be removed until sources are cited and concensus for adding it is reached? e.g The burden of proof is on those who wish to add the material. Getting a definitive answer to this question woul resolve the dispute. User:Moonriddengirl's answer was a little wishywashy, but did at least attempt to answer the fundamental question.--118.36.229.221 (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just an update from the DR side. I'm a regular volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The IP did file a DRN request, but the other editor involved in this Penbat is not responding to the notice of the filing left on his talk page. There's not much we can do in DR when one of the disputants chooses not to participate. Unless he/she decides to engage, the request will probably be closed in the next day or two. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC) PS @118.36.229.221: In response to the your question just above, "If controversial material is not properly cited, thus in violation of WP:IRS, shouldn't it be removed until sources are cited and concensus for adding it is reached?" Here's the definitive answer: There is considerable debate at the present time over just that point. (Most of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is about it, in one form or another.) But there is no suggestion or discussion that removal of uncited material, controversial or not (except for BLP material, which is a different subject) should be a 3RR or edit warring exception. If a controversy arises over the removal or retention of unsourced information, the ordinary consensus-building process and the standards set out in the Consensus policy still apply (and you might note in particular the No consensus subsection of that policy). You should feel free to join in that debate and propose or argue for such an exception (but no amount of discussion here or at the talk page of the articles in question can change the current policy, due to the WP:CONLIMITED policy). — TM 15:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Jingles

Mr. Jingles is a (mouse) character brought back to life by a character in The Green Mile (film). Mr. Jingles is also the name of a 2006 horror film. The page is currently disambiguated. Do we really create redirects for this? If so, what's the litmus? I'm ready to create the article for the film and don't want to remove a redirect without knowing how to do it properly. Ideas? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say creating an article at Mr. Jingles for the film of that name is fine, as long as you include a hatnote pointing to The Green Mile. GiantSnowman 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing an intenet meme or something? Is Mr. Jingles the mouse really that worthy of note? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

He's a character in a film and a likely search term. 'Mr. Jingles green mile' gets over 33k ghits. What harm does a hatnote do? GiantSnowman 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The mouse is more than just a character in the film, it's a major plot point. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Major" is an overstatement. The event is important, not the mouse itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Write the article, point the current redir at it, add a hatnote. Why is this on AN? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

... because the OP seeks enlightenment and AN is known to be a fount of wisdom and sage advice?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The deletion of the article concerning Christopher Tappin

Apologies as I don't know where to make such a request except but put it here. The aforementioned article needs to be deleted or moved because it violates all these issues WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:WI1E and WP:EVENT. I recognise Tappin has just been in the news but that, according to Wikipedia's own policies, does not make him worthy of an encyclopedic entry. In a nutshell he was a bent businessman who tried to sell batteries to the Iranians. Which incidentally never happened.

In the great scheme of things, I don't know why there is a need to keep this article when so many other "news" stories are regularly deleted per se. Please could an admin delete or redirect it article because it violates numerous Wikipedia guidelines about one-off news events which are not notable in the great scheme of things (irrespective of the number of contemporaneous references available). (Maybe its title could become a redirect to the article on Arms trafficking or extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom). I sincerely don't think future generations are going to thank us for keeping this story?

Permit me, but using the same logic shown by the editor who removed my initial deletion request on the grounds that there were enough sources to make it WP:N, then that should mean when any celebrity who does anything "scandalous" and get reams of column inches given to it, that would allow the incident/event to have its own article. Where would the mediocrity end? In Tappin's case, the story was a media moment about a crooked businessman who bemoaned the fact he was not immune to extradition to the United States from the UK. But extraditions happen every day that never make the news - this case is no exception. There does not seem to be any case why Tappin should be any different! So can an admin please delete (or redirect) this article particularly as I have seen far more worthier articles get the chop without a whimper.86.181.165.5 (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You proposed the article for deletion which was challenged. The next step is to have a full 7-day community discussion - although, those can be challenging to create when you're editing anonymously. Let's see what I can do. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Tappin for you, using most of what you had stated above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Greatuser and G5

Resolved

 – Poof go the contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Greatuser has been identified as a sock of Ali Mohammad Khilji, his contributed articles were created in violation of a block and thus become eligible for deletion under WP:G5. Psychonaut, one of my adoptees, has taken it upon himself to tag what seems like all such articlessome of these with the appropriate deletion template. However, given that the current discussion here, where consensus seems to be leaning towards avoiding G5 deletions where the subject has potential encyclopedic merit, I'm a little wary of going through and blindly removing them all. I'm bringing this here because I'd like a second (or y'know, however many) opinion; my take is that under the existing policy deletion of these pages is correct (even if that policy may be changed by a new consensus in the near future), but I'd like to hear what others think. Note: I'm asking this only in relation to Greatuser's tagged articles; I don't want to rehash the discussion currently taking place at the Village Pump here. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Under current policy, edits by banned users can (and usually are) reverted on sight, that those edits created articles is immaterial. There may be well be a case to be made for discussing that policy's future, but I don't think making exceptions now is the right way to go about it. — Coren ^(talk) 14:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall being an adoptee of User:Yunshui, or of anyone else for that matter. As far as I can tell I've been editing here many years longer than they have… It's also not true that I have tagged all of User:Greatuser's articles for CSD under G5. I have tagged only those articles which do not have substantial edits by other users. These constitute a minority. I started keeping track of my own CSDs earlier this year; you can see from the list at User:Psychonaut/CSD log that I've been very active in CSD G5 tagging and that pretty much all the articles have been deleted. (If some of them are blue links this is always, or almost always, because the article was recreated by another user.) —Psychonaut (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry; I got you confused with User:Psychonavigation... shows how good an adopter I am, when I can't even get my adoptees' names right. Heartfelt apologies. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. My point remains, though, that based on my past uncontroversial record of CSD G5 tagging, there's no evidence that my recent batch is outside policy. Should the Village Pump discussion ever result in a change to the CSD G5 policy, you can be sure that I'll modify my future tagging behaviour accordingly. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If somebody wants to go through the banned editor's contributions and verify them as valid, they can adopt the edits as their own by removing the tags. This should be done carefully with thought, definitely not automatically. If nobody is willing to check the contributions, they should be deleted. No information is better than wrong information. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. GiantSnowman 14:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In the specific case of User:Greatuser, please check the articles carefully before removing the tags. This sockpuppeteer is notorious for creating hoax articles, and for the generally very poor quality of non-hoax information he contributes. (Read through his enormous talk page archive for all the warnings and complaints he's received about "ruining" good articles.) Personally I think it's easier to just nuke all the contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the points made by all above, I think it is indeed sensible to apply the nuclear solution - which is what I'm now going to do. Thanks to all (especially Psychonaut, sorry again) for their input. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This also falls under WP:DENY as well. GiantSnowman 15:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

¿Hablo español?

Resolved

 – ¡Gracias Coren! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We need an admin that speaks Spanish to look at an SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eagle c5. It has been live since 12-20 and really needs action. I speak muy poco, and it appears none of the other clerks do either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Page vandalism/abuse

Hello,

I was looking around and I saw that the S.E. Hinton wiki page has some abuse to it like on guy who said right on the page "Screw U Little Kids I will Kill U all Nd Bary U In The Ociean >>>>>>>Ford Coppola]]"... Please fix this!

Thanks, aimmmmmmmmm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.142.202 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted and deleted, IP vandal blocked. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Important RFC at WT:TITLE

Admins may be interested in this RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, to confirm the roles of WP:TITLE and MOS in determining article titles. The question affects the smooth running of many discussions on Wikipedia, including the the application of policy and style guidelines at RM discussions. The more participation, the better. Admins' attention to the orderly conduct of the RFC would also be appreciated.

Noetica^Tea? 07:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The RFC is not here, folks; it's thataway. [Hatted by Noetica.]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, it's not important. We're an encyclopedia, users just want to find out why Mexico and the USA went at it in the 1800s and they really don't care what symbol gets stuck between Mexican and American. There's nothing wrong with trying to standardize Wikipedia layout but when such efforts lead to interminable conflict and disruption (see above) it's time to take a step back and chill out. It doesn't really matter whether six is the article and half-dozen the redirect or vice-versa. NE Ent 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Beg to differ. A grand total of four editors (two of whom now publicly disavow the issue entirely, right here on this page) blatantly violating WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:PARENT and WP:SOAPBOX, one already topic-banned for it and two others fairly likely to receive similar sanctions – not the first such topic ban for either of them – is not evidence of "interminable conflict" (a topic ban is a termination), but only of a handful of editors acting as a WP:TAGTEAM being problem editors on this topic, for which we have and have been applying standard remedies. Your criticism of the RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal seems to indicate that you haven't actually read it. It does not mention hyphens and dashes at all, and is specifically designed to stop similar disputes, arising from misunderstanding of how WT:AT and WT:MOS, related, from recurring! If you feel this Apteva/Wikid77/LittleBenW/Enric Naval case above involves conflict and disruption, as you surely do, you should be be supporting that proposal. Please have a look at it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

CAT:RFU overflowing

There are more currently active unblock requests than I think I've ever seen at one time. I'm going to work on handling some of these now, but I'd appreciate help. In order to clear out the backlog, if it looks like a request has been waiting on a response from the blocked user for some time, "decline" the request, asking them to throw up a new template with their response so we know when to check back. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised by the number as well, however if you go through them one by one many are in the process of being handled as there are admins and other helpful people discussing policy and such with the blocked editor. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Would there be value in adding a "reviewing" option (or expanding use of the "on hold" option) to take these out of the general category? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That might be worthwhile if the admin who left comments remembers to check back; I'm always worried with the "on hold" thing that requests are just being sent into a purgatory of sorts where they never get reviewed. And as I and Ponyo mentioned above, many of these are cases where an administrator has replied, but the blocked user has been silent for days or weeks. We need some way to know when they've responded. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on the matter, but would it be possible or practical to set up a "watchlist" that listed Talk pages with ongoing unblock requests so that it could be determined who last commented and how recently? Just a thought. Doniago (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone would need to set up a bot, similar to what they have over at WP:BRFA, to keep track of that information; there's no way to track that information simply using what Mediawiki provides. There is (was?) a bot operating in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-unblock that would notify members when a new request was posted, but I'm not sure if it's still working. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Bots are even more beyond my realm of expertise than blocking/unblocking (not an admin), but if people feel it would be useful and there's nobody better suited to the idea in a position to put theory into practice, I might be able to see if I can put something together. It seems like it might be useful in the current situation, but, as I said, I'm a bit out of my depth here. Doniago (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If an IRC bot that provides an RC feed of the talk pages of users that have filed unblock requests is wanted, I can easily put together an IRC bot to do that. Legoktm (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that something onwiki, like the DRN status template, might be better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps subcats of CAT:RFU to classify by status might help? Salvidrim! ✉ 21:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I might be able to have Snotbot periodically update a page somewhere with some information about current unblock requests, how long ago they were made, and who has responded to them, etc. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See if this works: User:Snotbot/Requests for unblock report. It's quite new so it's probably buggy. I'll let it run for a few days and then maybe transclude it to CAT:RFU once it's stable. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the {{Time ago}} template doesn't sort correctly in sortable tables. That sucks. I'm off now but I'll try to fix that in the next day or two. Cheers. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty skookum report...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking of; thanks, Scotty! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice report; thanks for the help, Scotty. I've handled two requests, but one of them, Dreamtheend, leads me to ask a technical question — because {{uw-spamublock}} includes Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names, it's easy for an unblocked user to appear in the category. Is there a bot that goes around to remove this category from talk pages of users who are no longer blocked, or does it just stay there until/unless someone removes it manually? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like User:AvicBot (BRFA) does this. Legoktm (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucratic missing the point of Hersfold post. Admins, just fish or cut bait. If you think a unblock request is sincere, unblock the user, if not reject it and provide a nice civil explanation of what the user needs to do. None of this claiming ownership of a discussion and please don't unblock without consulting me stuff, and creating new lists and new bots etc. etc. Unblocks just have to been reasonable, not perfect -- if an unblocked user resumes disruption that's on them, not the unblocking admin. Good faith is a code of conduct, not a probability assessment. Likewise if an admin denies an unblock, as long as the decline wording is civil and supportive, the user can simply post another unblock request.

We probably ought to change the rules for username blocks -- why not just leave the invalid account name blocked and tell the user just to start editing under a new account name? NE Ent 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with the table and the bot to update it? If nothing else, it helps us to see which requests are the oldest and should be resolved first. Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, denied requests can be frustrating for a user who is probably already frustrated because he's been blocked. Sometimes it is easier on everyone if you talk it through with a user to ensure they understand, rather than just dropping by and denying their request without discussion. The "fish or cut bait" attitude is not really the best way to minimize the frustration of the user. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence "Likewise if an admin denies an unblock, as long as the decline wording is civil and supportive, the user can simply post another unblock request." Of course a blocked user is frustrated -- what makes you think a long draw out back and forth is less frustrating than just answering the darn question. This all just adds move moving parts to break e.g. when archiving here broke because of a busted disk on a toolserver machine [45]. NE Ent 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. ‑Scottywong| express _ 17:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent - No admin should be faulted for asking additional questions while reviewing an unblock request if they believe it would be helpful in evaluating the veracity of the blocked editor's appeal and to ensure the editor understands what lead to the block in order to avoid the same pitfalls in the future. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course they can; I just did. If admin "A" is making unblock request "X" hangfire, then the rest of the admin community has more stuff to wade through to figure out that it's already being handled which consumes their wikitime making it more unlikely they'll have time to get to requests "Y" and "Z" that requires action. If the system was working well Hersfold wouldn't have started the thread, which is prima facie evidence the system isn't working well. Option A is complicated stuff relying on external servers, newly written enhanced or developed script, and the continuing presence of folks to maintain it. Option B is simply having admins making a decison when they review a situation. NE Ent 18:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent: I'm not sure why you have such a strong interest in this topic; I don't imagine that accepting/denying unblock requests is a task you take part in, and therefore you lack any experience in this process that could be used to back up your strong opinions. In any case, I've transcluded the table to the category page. The time/date-related columns sort correctly now. Let me know if you spot any problems. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 21:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection of Sakine Cansiz

Howdy admins--I bring this article to your attention because I wrote it and just now protected it. There seems to be some discrepancy, to put it mildly, between how some view this person and how others view her: twice she's been called a terrorist already in the last couple of hours. So I took the unusual step of semi-protecting it for a week; she's obviously in the news and I have good reason to think that such disruption by IP editors will continue. If you disagree, if you think I'm too involved to take this step, take whatever action you deem appropriate. I suppose I could have asked another admin to do this or brought it to RFP, but I'm kind of on the run right now and I don't want this article butchered in the meantime. Thanks for your oversight, Drmies (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• And while you're at it, have a look at File:Cool And Nice.jpg, brought to you courtesy of someone who just vandalized Kurdistan Workers' Party. And now I really have to run. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I nominated the file deletion under multiple CSD, and it has been deleted. In regards to the article, I'd say Drmies is involved, but a week's semi-protection in response to blatant vandalism doesn't seem too controversial, especially considering it's BLP per WP:BDP. See also Protection of BLP Pages. Rutebega (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just blocked that user indefinitely; they had nothing to offer but juvenile vandalism, sticking their name in various places. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I reckon the protection falls pretty unambiguously into the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" category, (I certainly would, and I'm occasionally reasonable...) so I see no violation of WP:INVOLVED here. A good call by the good doctor. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that--tell you what, I'll give you a free consult next time something ails you when composing an email or writing a paper for English lit (but not on Shakespeare or any other living poet). Drmies (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

We can safely say that "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Not INVOLVED, good work. GiantSnowman 15:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously involved. Textbook involved. But since it's only semi-protection and Drmies did bring it a noticeboard he qualifies for the involved loophole. "Resonable administrator?" Is that like "honest man"? NE Ent 16:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").

• In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
• The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
• To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
• The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
• The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.

We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

1. Keilana (talk · contribs)
2. RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
3. Pgallert (talk · contribs)

We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @239  ·  04:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Unblocking Penyulap

Penyulap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 few days ago I went to Coren asking if he would possibly unblock Penyulap, or at least his views on unblocking Penyulap. I have known Penyulap for nearly a year now. Firstly I want to say that I bring a message from Penyulap, which is down below. Another thing I want to say is that Penyulap himself is ready to return to full editing and is ready to be unblocked. He has been wrongfully turned down too many times now. Hushed and silenced down too many times, it gives an impression that this place is ruled by bureaucracy. I knew that I would be declined asking a few admins themselves, so it leaves me no other option than here. Then ArbCom if it goes that far. Like Coren had said "I'm not inclined to do [unblock Penyulap], at least not without a convincing argument from Penyulap" and "I'm entirely willing to hear an appeal from Penyulap, or they can request community (or ArbCom) review of the block" so here it goes - this is what Penyulap has to say:

"The fact of the matter, and the point that I would like to make, is that blocking should never be up to just a few people, and it should never be up to just one person. So blocking because of an essay is incorrect because an essay by definition is the opinion of a few which is inconsistent with the views of the many. Further, it is long standing practice that a person can take a break from all the drama, which is what I decided to do, rather than attempt in vain to explain to the deaf that some people were complaining because consensus, clear, written consensus, was against them. These matters were tldr, and if people are not going to listen then I'll just turn my back on them for a break, and let them work it out. So they got to enjoy the blunder of their own making on the main page which literally tens of thousands of people were effected by.

It comes down to this, does the community let stand a block that is by definition inappropriate because one or two people don't like someone? if that is the communities attitude, that people can block according to whim, fuck the lot of you. If the community wants policy to have any meaningful use, then they can damn well apply it. Hey, I'm blocked, and I can't vote for anything. I can't be part of a consensus which some admin will display contempt for now can I ? I have work to do.

Plus, I'd vote against it, as I have been learning programming, following up on my learning cinematic CGI. This programming stuff is wildly complex and I like it. Good for the brain. So the community has it's work cut out for it, because you'll get more than one or two admins who have bluffed the community into believing the block is legitimate, further bluffing the community by saying "Look everyone, ONE person (that would be Penyulap) agrees with me, so my minority opinion can override the rest of the community's opinion on the matter' so then you'd get a few people believing that bullshit as well. The fact of the matter is either consensus and policy count for something, or they count for nothing at all. The minority of admins who consider themselves to be dictators rather than servants of the community will bluff and bluff again. Plus, the good people who see what is going on stick retired templates on their talkpages and leave, thinking for god knows what reason, that it will help fix the problem. You'll get morons who don't like me, but want to see policy mean something vote against me based on their dislike of my outrageous humility. Pretty good way to miss the entire point of policy and cut off your nose to spite your face, bringing the whole project down that much faster."

There's your convincing argument. Penyulap also says that he fully supports dictatorship as opposed to any 'so-called policy'.Why Penyulap has been indefinitely unblocked is wrong and immoral - we'll fight it. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes people just don't make sense to others in what they write. "Outreageous humility" confuses many, one suspects. If people cannot understand what someone writes, than there is little point to going further in this medium. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What does Penyulap think he is blocked for? I once commented that Penyulap had probably served enough time, but I certainly take that back. As I remember it, Penyulap was blocked by community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#User:Penyulap. Whether Penyulap was hoping others had forgotten, and were willing to accept Penyulap's story of one admin using an essay to block him, or doesn't understand the reason he was blocked himself, he is not ready to be unblocked. Ryan Vesey 18:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, was your unblock request a joke? What was wrong or "immoral" about the block? Ryan Vesey 18:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reading through the block discussion, along with the above, I don't see where Pennylap is going to be a positive force towards making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --Jayron32 18:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Some more context would be nice. Neither the block log nor the angry rant posted above is very illuminating as to what led us to this point. Not everyone knows the backstory here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is one of the least persuasive requests for unblocking I've ever read. It is rambling, doesn't address the reason for the block as far as I can tell, neither argues that the block was valid, with a promise to change behavior, nor claims that the block was incorrect in any convincing way. Frankly, I'm surprised. This is no newbie, who might be confused about what is expected in an unblock request.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Clearly I've taken this out of context, but "fuck the lot of you" pretty much sums it up for me. This user doesn't understand why they are blocked and they blame others. Jaguar - if you want to help your friend, that's respectable. But you need to help your friend understand what he did wrong. If you don't know what that is either, than you're not helping him any.--v/r - TP 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ok, I have just reviewed the original block discussion. There was a strong consensus to block there, not just on or two admins imposing their will as claimed in the rambling, nonsensical request posted above. Penyulap obviously has an enormous chip on their shoulder, is not particularly interested in communicating coherently, and is apparently an unrepentant sockpuppeteer, so I can't see any reason to consider an unblock at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2013 (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.

Deactivate my other account

How can I deactivate my other account. I just want to keep the one that I am using right now and no longer need this one.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

you can't really. Just stop logging into it and forget about it is the best option.©Geni 05:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a good chance the requester will not see the answer, since Apteva "helpfully" moved his query here from where he posted it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

user informed of change of venue

Actually, since you edited under both identities in the same subject area you have been, whether it was your intention or not, violating our policy on the use of multiple accounts. As such I have blocked that account. Please familiarize yourself with the linked policy and refrain from doing that in the future. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Be nice. The accounts were not used at the same time, the editor has said that both accounts are his. Unless there's a particular reason to say so, no abuse has taken place. Sticking to one account is, though, generally a good idea. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I thought I was being nice. I am assuming this was done in ignorance not malice but the fact that they used two different accounts, going back and forth from one to the other but editing the exact same content, is not good and they need to be aware of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Remembering that blocking is not intended as punishment, but as prevention of possible damage, the block was appropriate. As noted, we don’t retire accounts, but if someone has two, and no longer intends to use one for any purpose, an indef block help insure that it doesn't get misappropriated.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I would have said "As you wanted the account deactivated I have blocked it. It's generally not a good idea for an editor to have more than one account anyway, see our policy on the use of multiple accounts for details. Hope that helps." No talk of violations, you are doing him a a favour with the block (which you are). All very friendly. Rich Farmbrough, 05:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

UAA backlog

Can someone drop over to UAA and help sort out the backlog? It's been over eight hours since the last name was actioned on. Thanks, Intelligentsium 05:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I knocked out a bunch of them, still a few on the pile. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Deactivate my other account

How can I deactivate my other account. I just want to keep the one that I am using right now and no longer need this one.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

you can't really. Just stop logging into it and forget about it is the best option.©Geni 05:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a good chance the requester will not see the answer, since Apteva "helpfully" moved his query here from where he posted it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

user informed of change of venue

Actually, since you edited under both identities in the same subject area you have been, whether it was your intention or not, violating our policy on the use of multiple accounts. As such I have blocked that account. Please familiarize yourself with the linked policy and refrain from doing that in the future. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Be nice. The accounts were not used at the same time, the editor has said that both accounts are his. Unless there's a particular reason to say so, no abuse has taken place. Sticking to one account is, though, generally a good idea. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I thought I was being nice. I am assuming this was done in ignorance not malice but the fact that they used two different accounts, going back and forth from one to the other but editing the exact same content, is not good and they need to be aware of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Remembering that blocking is not intended as punishment, but as prevention of possible damage, the block was appropriate. As noted, we don’t retire accounts, but if someone has two, and no longer intends to use one for any purpose, an indef block help insure that it doesn't get misappropriated.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I would have said "As you wanted the account deactivated I have blocked it. It's generally not a good idea for an editor to have more than one account anyway, see our policy on the use of multiple accounts for details. Hope that helps." No talk of violations, you are doing him a a favour with the block (which you are). All very friendly. Rich Farmbrough, 05:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

UAA backlog

Can someone drop over to UAA and help sort out the backlog? It's been over eight hours since the last name was actioned on. Thanks, Intelligentsium 05:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I knocked out a bunch of them, still a few on the pile. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Heavy backlog at WP:RFPP (28 open requests), with some sitting there for over one day. Admin attention needed. Ready, set, mop! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Modification of Alan Liefting's topic ban

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 that the Alan's block has been undone, but that this section remains open. If you wish to comment on the scope of the topic ban, and whether it should be modified, do so above the archived section, please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Topic ban for Alan Liefting, Alan Liefting is topic banned from making any category-related edits outside of mainspace. Having viewed the discussion, it appears that the crux of the problem was related to a) Alan Liefting making category-related edits to files and b) Alan Liefting making category-related edits to AfC pages. I would like to suggest that the topic ban be modified to only apply to files and AfC pages. We have no policy allowing categorization of templates and it doesn't appear that there has been a problem with Alan Liefting's edits to the category namespace. My apologies, I forgot to link to give the background to this situation. Alan Liefting was recently blocked for violating his topic ban. Necessary reading would include the discussion at User talk:Alan Liefting#Category-related edits, January 2013. Ryan Vesey 23:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would further add that the vagueness of the current Topic ban has caused Alan to be blocked a couple times (all by the same admin) and a clarification and modification to this ban would greatly benefit the pedia. It would allow the user to continue to edit while being able to fix the minor category problems they run across without violating the ban and the basis for the ban. Kumioko (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The current topic ban is clear and simple, which is a great virtue for any sanction, I also have no confidence (given past edit history) that a relaxed ban, as suggested here, would still avoid Alan's problem use of categories overall.

That said, I don't support his resultant block (GF suggests a warning to please be more careful to avoid accidental overlap would be appropriate and adequate). I'm particularly concerned that all patrolling of his topic ban seems to be coming from one admin. Now that too must surely be coincidence, but it still doesn't look neutral. If Alan were to (and I hope he doesn't) breach this topic ban, then I'm sure it would be obvious and noticed soon enough to be handled by other admins – and if it was benign enough to not raise concerns, then there's no harm done and little point in pursuing blocks over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I don't understand how a clear and simple topic ban is better than a topic ban that addresses the problematic areas and does not extend beyond it. Alan only violates policy in the areas I mentioned. Ryan Vesey 00:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see how clarifying and loosening the ban to allow some and still factor out those that the community determined to be troublesome. Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We rarely topic ban because of a breach of clear policy – if it's that cut-and-dried, then those are usually blocks. Bans arise where the community is being disrupted by persistent edits that don't clearly breach a policy (and we just don't have a policy against most of Alan's problem edits, we'd not previously needed one), but where these edits are going against (and repeatedly and disruptively) community consensus of "good practice". We base this on our policies against general disruption, but there's no simple policy to point to for the specific issue.

I see Alan's edits involving categorization to any namespace as having been part of this disruption. Not every edit, and some namespaces (e.g. file:) have been much more of a problem than others, but it's the categorization that's the common factor, not the namespace. On that basis, the topic ban should remain defined by categorization.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are trolling (the first time I have ever made such a judgement AFAIK). Perusal of my talk page and its archive will show that there is no basis in fact (as I have been repeatedly saying) for your accusations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what trolling means, since Andy Dingley's post did not even come close. Please read Internet troll. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that I said "I think you are trolling". It is a statement that has a qualification to indicate the I am unsure. Anyway, I used the page at m:What is a troll? as an explanation. The section on misplaced criticism is especially applicable. Also, my suggestion that he is trolling is an opinion based on his numerous edits with regard to me and not simply the foregoing comment from him. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional reading: Alan appealed the topic ban on Nov 5, 2012 and Nov 28, 2012. The block that he is currently under is the first block since the Nov 28 appeal was closed on November 30 with the message "There is clearly consensus to ban Alan Liefting from further appeals for no less than six months. — Coren (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)". Here are the block notices I left when issuing the blocks under the topic ban: [46] [47] [48] [49]. I have attempted to discuss the matter, e.g. [50] and other edits on that talk page. I would welcome any review of the blocks and topic ban. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not had a chance to read every word of the past appeals, but they both appear to be attempts for a full repeal of the topic ban. I was completely unaware of them when I made my request. This request also only involves a modification. Ryan Vesey 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think the topic ban is too broad. I think it should apply only to category-related edits in the file and user/user talk namespaces (not including his own userspace), and to articles within the AfC process. Alan has since acknowledged that he made edits which were disruptive and has apologised for them, and he says he has attempted to move away from that area. This is in the discussion on his talk page linked to by Ryan.-gadfium 01:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User/User talk is probably a good extension since it applies to the same types of articles as AFC. Ryan Vesey 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And as can be seen from my editing history I have completely steered clear of those edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban reduction to only apply to files and AfC pages: I do not really see the need to restrict edits in categories of user/user-talk pages. If category edits still seem excessive, then I think discussion at User:Alan_Liefting would be sufficient to request fewer edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with caveat. I've had problems with Liefting's mainspace categorization before, frankly (as did many others - his talk page for a while was flooded with "STOP!" messages), but he seems more clueful now. The extant topic ban is clearly overbroad, thwarting Liefting's ability to work on the encyclopedia in legitimate ways that interest him, and resulting in unjust blocks. For those who feel that he's simply a problem editor and will remain one, see WP:ROPE. Because Liefting has previously engaged in blatant WP:FAITACCOMPLI action, I would support only after the mainspace-categories-in-templates issue reported below is resolved, so that Liefting has a consensus in place to follow, instead of a lack of consensus to sway in favor of his sometimes strange categorization notions by going on a recategorization AWB run or whatever. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it is that editors have an issue with my categorisation edits with respect to user namespace pages, AfC pages, image pages and templates. For the purposes of this reply lets ignore the first three (which I have not touched since my topic ban was enacted). You want to have my current topic ban to remain in place until the "mainspace-categories-in-templates issue" is resolved. I see two problems with that idea. Getting any sort of decision on editing policy/guidelines appears to be next to impossible let alone for categories, so I will end up being penalised for no good reason. Secondly, not so much as a problem I guess, there is already an apparent consensus on template categorisation by virtue of the fact that the vast majority are not categorised in content categories. It is a consensus by virtue of convention. The lack of that realisation by some of the editors involved in prior discussions appears to be a partial reason for my topic ban. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If there's really a de facto consensus against categorizing templates in mainspace categories (I feel that there probably is), others will resolve templates that don't comply. You personally don't have to be involved. Virtually all of the problems that have arisen with your editing have been category-related. This is a strong indication you shouldn't be messing with categories any time there is even a hint of controversy, or you'll just end up right back here. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Question, I am 100% willing to remove mainspace categories from any and all templates. Would it be a violation of Alan's topic ban, as it stands, to inform me of these templates so I could remove them? Ryan Vesey 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point; he could simply send it to you in e-mail and no one would know. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, that makes absolutely no sense at all. Why should I be stopped from doing something for which there is de facto consensus? Please also bear in mind that a large part of my editing before having the topic ban imposed was category related. It therefore stands to reason that it is catgory related edits that would be noticed by other editors. And you are saying that if I come across a categorisation edit that needs changing I ignore WP:SOFIXIT and ignore the problem? I have tried that and developed quite a list both at the categorisation WikiProject and offline. Some of the items on my list have been attended to and sometime I leave comments at various WikiProject topic talk pages to get things sorted out. Having to do that is ridiculous and a complete waste of time. But that is what you are suggesting I do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You've asserted that there's a de facto consensus. I lean toward agreeing with you. Doesn't make it a foregone conclusion that everyone will agree. The very fact that a large part of your pre-ban editing was category-related is my point – your talk page had a strong tendency to turn into a firehose of objections to what you were doing with regard to categories, and you typically took a standoffish position with regard to these criticisms and requests to stop. To me, it does not bode well for you to re-involve yourself with categorization in any programmatic or sweeping way, especially given that various other editors are wary of you have having such involvement and looking, probably, to "jump on you" for any perceived transgression in that sector. If avoiding controversy with a little extra work is "a complete waste of your time", then why were you already doing it? "Methinks thou dost protest too much" in suggesting that I am, with "absolutely no sense at all", recommending you do what you're already doing, at least until the controversies about your categorization behaviors settle down. WP is a human endeavor, and like all other human endeavors, politics is always and automatically a factor. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Complicating matters in regards to templates

I apologize for complicating matters, but it's a complicated issue. Under my proposal above, Alan Liefting would be allowed to make category related edits in the template namespace. There is currently nothing in policy, that I have found, allowing mainspace categories to be used on templates (we have special categories for navboxes, infoboxes, etc.) That being said, given the fact that Alan's edits to templates have been (wrongly) used to support his ban, I think it is clear that a discussion on categorization of templates needs to take place. Given that, and under the assumption that support is attained for my suggested modification to Alan's topic ban, how should we treat Alan's ability to edit categories on templates? My suggestion is to not allow edits to mainspace categories on templates that are meant to be used in the mainspace until the discussion is closed, at which point Alan will be expected to comply with whatever the consensus ends up being. Ryan Vesey 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This actually seems a lot like the leed up to the topic ban. There is no policy that allows it, and no policy that prohibits it. Some editors don't see a problem with it, and object to the removal of the categories. In the file categories case, we then had an RFC that soundly rejected a policy that would have supported the removals. Alan then continued removals after the RFC. I'm not really sure what is going to be different this time around. I have no doubt that Alan means well, but the topic ban really is necessary. All it would take for me to support lifting the topic ban would be for Alan to acknowledge the root of the problem and pledge not to continue courses of category edits in the face of objections, especially when there is no clear policy or guideline backing him up. If there was a proposal allow him to participate in category related discussion while still banning him from direct edits, I would probably support that as well. Monty₈₄₅ 05:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about that since it appears that WP:Categorization allowed for categorization of files long before the issue began. As for templates, WP:Categorization is what allows categories to appear on pages, it does not allow categories to appear on templates, as a result, templates cannot have categories (mainspace ones that is). Ryan Vesey 10:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The original problems were with the files (and some templates) and the userspace drafts. The first is a contentious, and difficult, field, the second are edits that 'have to be done', but there are several ways of doing them (removal by outright clear-cut removal, commenting them out, or colon-ising them - and it depends on which you deem the best and the least bitey to a new editor). However, the topic ban is covering all fields of categorisation, and enforced even though hardly ANY of the edits that have resulted are reverted, removed, undone, whatever - the edits stand, for months, but the editor who performs them is blocked because of an edit restriction which is too broadly worded.

I would support to restrict the edit restriction to 'mainspace categorisation of pages in the files, templates and categories namespace' (he can still suggest them to/discuss them on e.g. the categorisation WikiProject for others to solve, but no addition or removal or recategorisation of files, templates and categories when it involves mainspace categories), and that for the categorisation of userspace drafts (including articles for creation) Alan has to perform the following: 'colonisation of the categories on those pages, followed within 10 minutes with a note on the talkpage of the creator of the draft article' (or leave them alone and suggest them to others). I would also ask for the removal of the restriction on Alan that disallows Alan to discuss the lifting of the restriction on AN, which was implemented because he asked for it for the second time (sigh, that is akin blocking talkpage access of a blocked editor as soon as the editor asks for the second time to lift his block). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 05:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I have reviewed his category-related edits, and I can say the edits he has made to violate the current ban were recategorization of templates and categories (mostly removing categories, e.g. [51] [52]). I think he has not been editing userspace drafts recently. If the goal of changing the restriction is to affect the current block, it would need to allow him to edit such pages. However, removing categories from templates was one of the things that was discussed before the topic ban was implemented, and I think the inclusion of templates was intentional. I have interpreted the current ban as allowing Alan to post cleanup messages such as [53], which should be sufficient. However, one problematic aspect of his editing is that he sometimes has posted the note, only to later remove the categories himself, e.g. [54] [55]. I think the reason few of his edits are reverted is the same reason the cleanup tags are not promptly answered: few people watchlist templates and categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Or the reason is that the edits are simply fine. But that does not matter anyway. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 14:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Carl, Dirk Beetstra is correct here. The reason that few of his edits are reverted is not because people don't see them. If that was the case, he would never be blocked. You chose to block him, which was in line with the technical bounds allowed to you by the editing restriction, while endorsing his edits by default. Ryan Vesey 17:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but let's all stop beating on Carl. Alan broke the rules of the community-endorsed topic ban several times, on several separate occasions. There's no point in a community-endorsed topic ban if it's not enforced. Sure, as I've said on Alan's talkpage, Carl might have given Alan a warning, but in all honesty, we should credit Alan with more intelligence, he knows the bounds of the topic ban, there's thousands of edits he can make without infringing it. Please stop pretending Alan is the victim here, Carl is technically right to do what he's done. Having said that, if 0.2% of my edits were called out as being bad and I was blocked for a month, I'd be upset, but then again, I would work hard to avoid that situation. Can we just focus on the idea that the topic ban phrasing could be updated to include a single warning should Alan transgress once again, and have a duration, e.g. three months? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ryan seems so keen to whitewash Alan that he's now blanking any criticism of him on other projects as "removing unrelated crap" and edit-warring to re-blank it when it's restored. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's completely unrelated and your idea that I'm "whitewashing" Alan is wrong. Ottawahitech made an inappropriate edit in an improper venue. Editors have a responsibility to remove crap like that. Ryan Vesey 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alan Liefting is a clear deletionist and a regular at AfD. To hear him discuss editor retention with the comment, "We should also keep editor attrition in the back of our minds when !voting on deletion discussions." is thus a little surprising, at least when it's coming from him. Not surprisingly, Ottawahitech then challenged him over this and noted some of Alan's past actions that were rather at variance with his words here. Ottawahitech's comments were very far from complimentary and might have been phrased more modestly, given the fluffy kid gloves we're all supposed to wear whilst typing, but one thing they certainly weren't was "unrelated". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just a question, is this actually related the topic ban we're discussing across most of Wikipedia, or is it a different matter that needs to be dealt with locally/elsewhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's unrelated. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• When Ryan is trying to instigate presenting Alan as the innocent victim of an unwarranted topic ban, whilst simultaneously blanking other's well-founded criticisms of him, then it's related. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed with Andy Dingley on all his points in this section. (And note that I support partial relaxation of Liefting's topic-ban; they're severable concerns.) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Alan Liefting commented on User talk:Alan Liefting#A few replies for the AN discussion, and the blocking admin agreed that it would be ok to add his comments to this discussion. Per Alan's request I've simply added the link instead. Huon (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Andy, your position on the quality of my edits is all over the place. You have contradicted yourself on my talk page about these supposed "well-founded criticisms". Now are you sure that your comments are not clouded by the fact that we have not seen eye to eye in past discussions? You seem to be clutching at straws to make sure that I am penalised. BTW, another editor has endorsed Ryan's edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a narrowing of the topic ban - to File, AFC and other's user-space. Blocking an editor for making perfectly good edits shows that either we are slavishly following rules, or the rules are wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 04:12, 13 January 2013 (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.

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.

---

The problem with this type of discussion

I am going to create this as a subsection of this because it deals with this case but it is also a wider problem. I have and always have had a major problem with ANI cases and discussions like this against users who are blocked and cannot even comment to defend themsleves or make a statement. THIS IS WRONG! It was wrong before it happened to me, it was wrong when it happened to me and its wrong now and this is the sort of conduct and dirty tactics that is frequently used on here to get peoples way. The user requested an unblock to comment here and it was denied. Ok fnie, several editors volunteered to copy the users comments here, ok fine. But now instead of the user getting a voice in this a link to his talk page was left so now, in order to get to it the reader has to wade through a whole nother discussion. Virtually no one is going to do that. We all have lives and nbetter things to do. If we are going to participate in a discussion about a user like this, then that user should be able to have a voice. That is my opinion and you may not agree but I know how frustrating and how pissed I was and still am about it. I see it too often and I finally decided its time to say something about it so at least its on record. If the user is being discussed then they need to have access to the discussion; If we are unwilling to unblock him then this conversation needs to move to the users talk page with a link here to it. This block, discuss, exclude bullshit is not a civil or mature way to handle these types of problems. Kumioko (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel that he should have been unblocked just to take part in this. I've seen it happen before. I'll ping a neutral admin. Ryan Vesey 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm that neutral admin, and I am in fact neutral. I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have unblocked Alan so he can participate in this discussion. See the conditions I set on his talk page, and please be advised that I am well aware that my blocks and unblocks are always subject to community approval. I trust that Alan will not abuse this limited freedom. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That at least fixes things for this case. I still stand by the statement above that it happens all too often and all too often people turn their backs too it. Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a systemic problem with administration of WP by our administrators both individually or collectively. I don't have any animosity to the admins involved in this discussion so my comment is not a case of sour grapes (having said that I do wish Carl would turn a blind eye to my uncontroversial edits relating to the topic ban.) Time and again there has been complaints about the behaviour of admins. Admins should have exemplary behaviour, mind you so should all other editors! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan, you realise that comment actually has no content at all, right? You think there's a "systemic problem" but go on to explain that admins/non-admins are all the same and should all behave in the same way. Do you have a point, or is it one of those Merlot mornings? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Waddaya mean by no content? I put forward an opinion. An opinion is content. My point is that it is good that the whole RfA process is tightened up so only the good ones get through but there are some admins who have atrocious behaviour and I think it is hard to control or get rid of them. Admins control the common rabble so they should be on their best behaviour. To set the example and all that. BTW, I only drink Merlot in the evenings. Probably your mornings. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Rambling Man is correct; that was totally content-free in any meaningful sense. Alan, your verbiage was just noise, in the information theory sense, since the logic was so faulty that half of what you said cancelled the other half out. You're not parsing "content" correctly, just as you didn't understand "trolling" properly earlier. I strongly suggest that you stop trying to get into nit-picking arguments here. You were unblocked to make a case for a change to your topic-ban, not to engage in petty bickering over and act defensively and haughtily in response to criticism. Further behavior of that sort is highly likely to convince me to rescind my support of a relaxation of your topic ban. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of Alan proposal

Personally, it feels to me that consensus is forming to the effect that the topic ban is overly broad. The discussion should continue, but I would like to add the next step in this discussion. The block by Carl was correct as it applied to the topic ban; however, there seems to be a consensus forming that having this block in place neither helps Wikipedia nor prevents Wikipedia from being harmed. I propose that we unblock Alan Liefting (he is currently technically unblocked, but give him the go ahead to start improving the 'pedia again) as "time served" (he's been blocked for almost a week now) with the full topic ban in place until a decision is made on the above discussions. Ryan Vesey 17:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem sensible: as long as the topic ban is in place, the block is legit and should also remain fully in force. Block conditions should never be complex as they're tricky for admins to enforce and there's a potential for the editor to misunderstand the conditions (or claim to misunderstand them, as happens sometimes - though hopefully not here). Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick, there is no suggestion by Ryan to change the original topic ban at this stage. He simply wants my current block to be lifted in light of the emerging consensus above. Also, given emerging consensus the block cannot really be considered "legit". BTW, I think the current topic ban is a bit easier to understand, and therefore follow and enforce, than the modification to it suggested in the foregoing discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a clear consensus from the above that the block was made in accordance with the ban conditions, and as such was a legitimate action. The issue is whether these conditions should be amended (which would then lead to the block being entirely lifted), and this appears to have general, though not overwhelming, support from the above discussion. Am I correct in reading your last statement as meaning that you don't actually want the ban conditions altered? Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the block was a "legitimate" action but from a common sense viewpoint and as a means of protecting WP it is completely nonsensical (and no one seems to be helping me to clean out the rapidly expanding Category:Articles with missing files...). And no, I am not saying that I don't want the topic ban conditions changed. I am simply pointing out that perhaps it will be more complicated to enforce. I don't want any sort of topic ban hanging over me at all - but lets not go there! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a block is legitimate doesn't mean it is beneficial. Ryan Vesey 04:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's the deal

Some of you may think that I am in no position to make a deal but here goes anyway. If I am unblocked I promise that I will abide by the intent of what has been construed as an overly onerous topic ban. I will not even do any completely uncontroversial category edits. There is work to do and I am getting behind in meeting my deadlines and clearing the backlog. (Oops, thats right, I forgot that it is not a job. It is just an addiction. ) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And if you break the terms of your topic ban? Are you happy to be re-blocked on the current escalating scale with no recourse? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that good sense prevails and policy and guidelines will be developed, which will then allow for the suggested modification to my topic ban. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You disagree with the way your ban has been handled (including subsequent blocks), the community don't consensually agree with your point of view. Wait, this is exactly the status quo. So if you breach the terms of your current topic ban, things will return to the existing status quo, i.e. you get progressively longer blocks. All you're asking for now is for the current block to be removed? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I read that as 'I am going to try my hardest meanwhile to change policy & guidelines so the actions that got me restricted in the first place will not be subject to restrictions'..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Struck out. Forget I said anything. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So are we done here? Do you have anything further to add to AN or are you now content to sit out the remainder of your latest block? Either way, you should contact User:Drmies who was collegiate enough to allow you the opportunity to edit here despite your current block. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rambling Man--my involvement, as far as I'm concerned, ended with the limited unblock. A "reblock" should be done by someone familiar with the issue and the discussion here. I do note that Alan has made a few talk page edits that do not pertain to this matter, though he noted that he shouldn't be conversing about other matters. Not such a big deal to me personally. Anyway, I am not well-versed enough in the matter to reblock or to leave him unblocked. You all should come up with that consensus, and the sooner the better. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as an "involved" admin, I've been advised to avoid any admin action here. You unblocked him with certain conditions. I suggest you now reblock him per the original conditions since Alan is demonstrating no desire to continue discussion here. It's pretty simple for me. The unblock was to assist Alan's communications here and nowhere else, right? You unblocked him for that didn't you? Please now "undo" the "unblock" and restore the original conditions of the block. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

TRM, you are making an incorrect assumption about my intentions or misconstrued what I said. Yes, it is true that I have "no desire to continue discussion here" but that is because I want it resolved so we can all move on. When I said "Forget I said anything" it was for the comment that I struck out. You and I have a strained relationship for some reason and it looks like the tension is increasing again. Your desire to pass punitive measure agaisnt me and which is contrary to the will of most others who have contributed to this discussion is demonstrating that animosity. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not really, just not sure what you need to be unblocked for right now. You made your plea, you retracted your plea, everything else can take place at your talk page or after your block expires. I don't get why you feel the need to circumvent your block now you're not interested in discussing your position here. "Your desire to pass punitive measure agaisnt me and which is contrary to the will of most others who have contributed to this discussion is demonstrating that animosity." - no, I'm just asking that the original block (or the most recent block) for transgressing your topic ban should be re-enacted since you decided to remove your request. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, as far as I understand it there is nothing stopping me from editing my talk page on matters that are not related to the block? Is that correct? Anyway, looking at it from a rational and collegial viewpoint it is best to reply to questions from other editors on my talk page. If policy prevents that it would be petty. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

TRM, the conditions imposed on me means that I cannot post on Drmies talk page. I am essentially still blocked from editing. PLease make yourself conversant with the issue before making comments. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I assume Drmies will be watching this since he unblocked you? I was half-way through reminding Drmies of this scenario and thought better of it. Now I wish I'd pursued it sooner so we could close out this latest episode of Alan's mini-drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Here's the deal, For what little my opinion is worth I still think this block is a pointless waste of a lot of editors time. Alan has abided by the purpose of the block. He has stayed away from the areas that got him topic banned. He made a few passing edits to a couple categories that have absolutely nothing to do with his ban. Block him or unblock him the decision is yours. But do it knowing that there are several editors who have voiced their disagreements with this block and the fact that in all cases the excalating blcoks were done by the same involved admin. This block is solely being done to punish the editor and to make a point. That's it. No harm to the pedia is being prevented with this block. Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right, this has nothing to do with protecting WP. I would like to point out that I have a long term strained relationship with the two editors here who want to continue with punishing me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we (well at least I) want to just see things done properly. Alan has been blocked but allowed some latitude to post here by the kindness of Drmies. Two questions into this, Alan has decided to tell us to "forget it" so I suggested we returned to the status quo. Big deal. Seems straight forward enough to me. And no, Kumioko, this isn't a "punishment", it's a standard incremental block on an editor who continually ignores his community-sanctioned topic ban. It's as simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

TRM first let me lead this off by saying that I have always thought you were fair and a level headed editor. Your one of the few who I still have a high degree of respect for. With that said, when he said that, he was clearly referring to the struck out comment when he said forget it. Your right about being allowed to edit here. I am glad that Drmies did that. I was one of the ones who fought for that because I personally think it is wrong to exclude a longstanding editor from a discussion like this. I also still don't agree this isn't a punishment. Its clear to me that's what this is at the detriment of the pedia. I am familiar with the background of the case and the grounds for the Topic ban but it is clear as day to me that these edits have absolutely nothing to do with that ban. The only thing they had in common was they were categories, thats it. The situation is comparing apples and oranges. Now I am not going to keep arguing about it because I have basically given up on the community and this is the sort of thing I expect to see. You get users like Alan that get blocked for petty shit like this and you have other users and admins doing whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want and we just turn our backs to it. Its absolutely pathetic the way we treat our editors these days. Its disgraceful and disgusting. It makes me ashamed to tell people I edit because every time I bring it up, they tell me things like I tried to edit once but the told me I was a "fucking idiot and I need to learn to spell first". I hear many stories like that. I stopped telling people I edit. This situation is no exception. We continue to cannabolize our ranks; we burn each other down and then piss on the ashes. If Alan was doing such a horrible job then why is it the exact same involved admin who blocks him each time. I'll tell you. Because he is involved and looking for a reason to do it. Plain and simple. I don't expect anyone to care what I say or care about my opinion. But I wanted it on record I don't agree and several other editors don't agree as noted above and on Alan's talk page. So if the admins in this case want to go ahead and say there is no consensus and continue to the block then fine. But again you are doing it because that is what you want, not what the community wants. Kumioko (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, if you block him, please block me for the same duration! Kumioko (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said! <personal attack redacted by Dweller> -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan, consider yourself extremely fortunate that I haven't blocked you for that egregious personal attack. --Dweller (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the leniency. I am now unsure where the boundary is between describing the behaviour of others and what constituents a personal attack. Sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

Just to clarify I think very highly of TRM. I attribute it to the atmosphere of Wikipedia these days and this is in no way directed at TRM. The atmosphere here is toxic, corrosive and infectious. Even the most respected editors and admins are not immune to occasional acts of stupidity and assholery!. Unfortunately, more and more are making those acts less occasional than common. That's why I have gone from doing more than 10, 000 edits a month (some months over 20 and 30 thousand) to less than a couple hundred a month and 99% are on discussions. Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Eh... There is too much focus on Alan's unblock and the conditions thereof. I unblocked him so he could participate in this here AN thread about his editing behavior. I did not unblock him so he could a. make personal attacks or b. have conversations with other editors.

• a. What was redacted above by Dweller was at the very least unhelpful. I don't like civility blocks and this, for me, was not blockable. The Rambling Man considers themselves too involved to act on it and that's probably a wise decision. Dweller's finger hovered over the block button but they refrained, wisely or not. As I said before, if any (uninvolved, I suppose) admin thinks that Alan's edits here are disruptive one way or another I won't stand in the way of ending his temporary freedom to participate in this thread. Again, I won't (re-)block for that particular remark, but YMMV and that's fine with me. I have no horse in this race, no dog or zombie either.
• b. I did not, Alan, unblock you so you could advise other editors who come to your talk page. The proper answer is "sorry I'm on the other line" or some version thereof. Again, I won't block for it, since you produced that answer after a few responses, and at any rate your talk page privileges were not revoked, AFAIK. But please stay on point, and don't comment on your block while your block is being discussed: it's foolish and there's enough bad blood already.

There's a proposal below. I hope you all can focus on that so we can bring this to a close. Ent is chomping at the bit to close this entire discussion, Alan wants some clarity, Floquenbeam is still racking up points for their Christian charity exercise (power to you, Floq), and this needs to be taken care of. In Bradspeak: I have unblocked Alan's one-month block temporarily so he could participate in this here discussion at this here Administrators' Noticeboard. If, in your judgment, he trespasses that privilege and is disruptive one way or another, reblock. Then, </end bradspeak> decide on something, close the thread, have a beer, move along. I am in no way endorsing the use or even abuse of alcohol among editors, though it makes your French more palatable. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's put aside all the personal back and forth and focus on improving Wikipedia. I suggest:

• Alan affirmatively states he intends to follow the topic ban.
• He's declared "unblocked" for the purpose of editing.
• All parties in the discussion stop talking about each other. Not important. NE Ent 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support this per the sections above. I should like to clarify that this, and the rest of the unblock discussion I initiated, should in no way assume the topic ban modification should or should not occur. Should Alan be unblocked, he is bound by whatever the topic ban is when he is unblocked and if the modification is closed with consensus to modify, Alan would immediately be held to the new ban rather than the old one. Perhaps I shouldn't have started the unblock discussion as soon as I did, but the topic ban modification was dragging out so I jumped the gun a little. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• If I am unblocked I hereby affirm I will follow any topic ban imposed on me (even though the current one is seen as overly draconian). I guess I will have to wait for the day that the community decides to create comprehensive categorisation guidelines before any alteration of my topic ban can take place. Sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• It might look like I'm making you grovel by repeating yourself, Alan, but as an uninvolved admin, I'm just making absolutely sure I understand what is going on. Do I understand correctly that:
  • You were topic banned from all category-related edits outside of mainspace, and have been blocked for violating it before
  • You strongly disagree with that topic ban, and believed at the very least it should have had a narrower scope
  • You made some category-related edits that weren't problematic per se, but which violated the topic ban
  • You were blocked 1 month for it
  • You still believe that the topic ban is unreasonable/unfair/too broad/what-have-you
  • You agree to abide by it anyway, and make no category-related edits outside of mainspace, no matter how obviously correct you believe they are
  • If the scope of the topic ban is modified, you'll abide by that. If it isn't modified, you'll abide by the current one
  • You have not previously affirmed that you will abide by the topic ban; this is new

If this is correct, please say so here, and I'll modify this limited unblock to a full unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• You sum up my stance and my promise with pretty much 100% accuracy. I am also sick and tired of this endless discussion. It is a wasting a lot of time and energy (although some may be here solely for this sort of thing...) Maybe even close this whole AN discussion and we can all go our separate ways. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, then a couple of things. First, you're now welcome to edit anywhere on WP, subject only to whatever topic ban is currently in place. Second, since you're already unblocked, the only way I can figure out to modify your block log is to reblock for 2 minutes, and then unblock so I can add a note about this to the block log. With my luck, this will cause you an autoblock, for which I apologize in advance. Third, probably best if you and those who disagree with you limited your interaction for a while, in order for things to cool down. Fourth, I'll look through this again and see if I agree that the entire section can be archived. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• It should be archived from #Unblock of Alan proposal down. Thanks Floq. Ryan Vesey 00:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ryan thanks for being staunch but do you think archiving the whole discussion may be a better idea? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• If you have no desire to modify your topic ban, yes. It seems to me that there is consensus, or at least close to consensus, for a modification. Ryan Vesey 00:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to have my topic ban modified but I also want this discussion to end so we can all move on. I am willing to have the current topic ban remain in place and maybe it can be revisited at some point in the future. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Floquenbeam. From my POV I don't think the discussion was particularly heated. Frustrating and interminable but not heated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (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.

Blacklists and assholes

After having seen this on WP:NPP and this on WP:AfC, I was surprised that a new user could create pages with the word "asshole" in them. Aside from perhaps a work by Frank Zappa that I missed, I can't think of a single valid reason to create an article using this word. (And I got Elvis' Greatest Shit created, so I'm not averse to bad language when in an appropriate context). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't think there's a single notable work with the word "asshole" in it? It took me less than twenty seconds to come up with five. IPs and other casual editors add the vast majority of our content, and every barrier that's put in their way hurts us. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. You probably thought I meant I couldn't search for existing articles with "asshole" in the title, as opposed to not thinking of any ideas of new articles. I also said I had created an article on a notable subject with an expletive in it myself, going via this very board to do it, so that's not really the issue - more that creating an article with this title is so infrequent that it would be a net benefit to add "asshole" to the blacklist alongside "shit". --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point. If several such articles, mostly about notable published works already exist, and "asshole" is not an obsolete word like "hungred", then logically it's a near certainty that more notable works will use this word in their titles in the future, probably the very near future. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Would the edit filter block the creation of AFC pages? I just created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit with my non-admin alternate account (containing nothing but a deletion tag and "Page created to test the title blacklist."), and to my surprise it went through quite fine. I was planning to comment on the wording of the message presented when the blacklist prevents the creation of a title, but I'm not sure how to do that without disrupting mainspace. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The warning depends on the regex that the page gets blocked under. (By the way, do note that the edit filter and the title blacklist are two totally different things.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I knew that, but obviously I wasn't paying attention. I was only attempting to trigger the title blacklist. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to find most of the messages here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See also this AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And, for completeness, this thread is when I noted I couldn't create an article with "shit" in it, about a fortnight after that AfD. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the messages. The text of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit almost seems to presume that a false positive has happened and provides full instructions for creating a needed page. I don't understand Chris' last clause. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised Asshole from El Paso doesn't have an article. I might just write this one, if only to try to get it pushed through WP:DYK and on the main page. _{(muahahahahahaha)} caknuck _° needs to be running more often 07:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've made a change that should probably resolve this issue. Before this change, the title blacklist would have rejected names that included "is an asshole". I've changed it so that it also rejects phrases like "are assholes". ‑Scottywong| confer _ 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• My most recent DYK was Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, the First Sixty Years, so I definitely disagree with the premise "I can't think of a single valid reason to create an article using this word." 28bytes (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. We also have The No Asshole Rule. Warden (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the title blacklist will currently only prevent IP's and non-autoconfirmed editors from creating articles that include things like "is an asshole" or "are assholes". There are very few valid articles (like The Devil is an Ass or The Masses Are Asses) that this entry would have prevented. Just the word "asshole" on its own in a page title is not restricted, to my knowledge. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, but not really

I've just seen a registered user place a bogus block notice on an IP's talk page. What should I do, apart from reverting? I'm afraid I've never encountered anything like this before. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Alameda's history, you'll see a lot of problems. I don't think the editor is a bad actor, but more likely generally incompetent. I suppose they need some advice at a minimum, although I'm not sure if the problems are fixable (call me cynical).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not an isolated incident... Salvidrim! ✉ 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, you removed a bunch of the false block notices. I've now removed the rest (I think). I've left a note on the editor's talk page, and we'll see what happens next.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK I did not know that and some of my contributions has unexpained edits but some of them did not have vandalism. Alameda15 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK Alameda has said it and we should closed this discussion. Carson30 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Carson30, can you explain why you think you are qualified to call for the discussion to be closed? You appear to have only made 8 edits to Wikipedia - none of which were of any significance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: per this [56] it seems evident that Carson30 and Alameda15 are the same person - and neither account is a net benefit to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've indef'd Carson30 per WP:DUCK and blocked Alameda15 for 48 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the policy or guideline on people who give themselves barnstars? Carson30 has awarded Alameda15 a barnstar. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Aaronsw RIP

[57] FUCK. I am so pissed at this. What a stupid loss. Pardon my language. Those of you who followed his saga will understand. A total tragedy. Could the admins please do the usual stuff about his account and user pages. I just hope it's a hoax but I doubt it. Thank you. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally accounts are not blocked after death, but I have locked the userpage. The talk page is open just incase people wish to leave notes of condolences. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably put something there during the weekend. I'm calmer now, but sleepy. Goodnight. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's no hoax. It is a tremendously sad event; see the Wikimedia blog --My76Strat (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)(condolences)

In case of any doubt, BBC has also put up an article on it. Blackmane (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Block review

• Wingwrong (talk · contribs)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked Wingwrong with a reason "for persistent tendentious editing, especially for persistent offensive advocacy for denialism on Comfort women".[58]

• persistent tendentious editing: Wingwrong edited Talk:Comfort women[59] on 11 January 2013 three month after the previous edit[60] on 24 October 2012. Is this persistent tendentious editing? This block is as if the user violated a topic ban.
• persistent offensive advocacy for denialism on Comfort women: Is what Future Perfect at Sunrise call denialism a legitimate reason to block a user?

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I had a quick look at User talk:Wingwrong and Talk:Comfort women, and it is clear that "persistent offensive advocacy for denialism on Comfort women" is accurate. There is no policy that such activity must be blocked, but does anyone recommend an unblock? Is there a reason to expect that an unblock might help the encyclopedia? The user's English is not good enough for an expectation that advice would be understood, and the user recently repeated unsourced advocacy (diff) after a one-month block in August where three separate unblock requests were declined by different admins. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) Wingwrong was blocked twice before for similar behaviour; the last time was for a month. At that time, Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) told him that he was "running out of chances", that he needed to make a "complete change in attitude" and that he would likely be blocked indef the next time [61]. Wingwrong's editing has consisted purely of politically motivated national advocacy editing on matters of Japanese foreign conflict (Comfort women, Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku Islands), and in particular on Comfort women he has persistently used the article and the talk page for agenda screeds, promoting denialist fringe positions. That article has been afflicted with these kinds of edits from several (usually Japanese) editors for years. It is my position that people misusing Wikipedia for pushing their agendas of Japanese-war-crime denialism should be treated no differently from those who push Holocaust denialism, Armenian genocide denialism, 9/11 "truth" conspiracy theories or other similarly outworn political fringe positions. We block such editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

FPoS is absolutely correct here. This user is here to push a fringe ultra-nationalist position on a large number of articles. While it's good that he stopped edit warring on the articles themselves, it's a waste of other editors time to have to constantly respond to his posts on article talk page that are generally somewhere between wrong and ludicrous. And the viewpoint he represents, especially on Comfort women is held by such a tiny number of people that it qualifies as WP:FRINGE. His last set of edits there (demanding physical evidence) demonstrate he has no interest in understanding or implementing Wikipedia's core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. While Phoenix is correct that the frequency of editing has gone down, the key problem has not. I support the block. It is somewhat conceivable that the user could be unblocked at some point, but he'll need to demonstrate a radically different approach to editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the relevant talk pages, and I have to agree the block is valid. This user obviously doesn't understand (or doesn't care about) our basic policies and is determined to push a fringe POV. Their English skills don't seem to be good enough to make meaningful contributions either. I suppose we could issue a topic ban from all articles relating to comfort women, but almost all this editor's contributions relate to some sort of international controversy involving Japan and the problems are sufficiently severe that they are likely to crop up again if they try to edit anywhere else. Hut 8.5 11:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• A good block, for sound reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• This looks like a good block to me as well - this editor is essentially a single purpose account for pushing a Japanese nationalist POV, and clearly isn't here to develop neutral encyclopedic articles. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of fairness, Wingwrong has stated the following on his talk page in reference to this block:

he Japanese government has consistently denied that "comfort women were forced by the military." In fact, Korean never present Physical Evidence. That is all. I'm not a denialist. I'm "evidence-supremacist". Would be required by the Wikipedia exactly?Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Then in User Talk:Wingwrong#Comfort women's question there is more evidence presented to support his position, in particular referencing a Japanese news article that claims that the Japanese government has explicitly supported the position he's pushing, and therefore it doesn't qualify as fringe. I'm too close to the content dispute to offer an opinion on this (plus, I was reading the news story through Google Translate, and that's iffy at best). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to be debating the content issues, but the Kono Statement of 1993 is the Japanese Government's official position on the issue, and it acknowledges that coercion was used to recruit 'comfort women' from Korea and elsewhere: [62]. According to a quick Google search, the current Japanese Government is considering moving away from this position: [63] [64], but that doesn't excuse this POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to clarify what exactly is the problem with Wingwrong's editing. Hut 8.5 (and Nick-D, in different words) says that "almost all this editor's contributions relate to some sort of international controversy involving Japan", but there are many such users that are brought to this board and that's not automatically ground for a permaban. Is it the poor English competency, per Johnuniq? Some people alluded to edit-warring, but haven't provided links to ANEW discussions. I've only seen blocks issued in punishment for talk page rants at AE, and the "comfort women" issue is not sufficiently high-profile to go there.

  Like Qwyrxian, I must confess a personal interest in this issue, but I must draw a distinction between Japanese war crime denialism and attempts to rigorously verify sources. Although such attempts—as Qwyrxian alluded to in Wingwrong's talk page comments—may come from denialist motives (we can't read minds), the end result could help the encyclopedia by spurring mainstream editors to replace low-quality scholarship like R.J. Rummel mega-statistic compilations with more specifically relevant sources with an open methodology.

  Although attempts to downgrade the number of people killed in the Holocaust are universally condemned and seen as Holocaust denialism, mainstream media outlets such as the BBC note controversy over the number killed in the Rape of Nanjing, for example. Liberal Korean and Taiwanese historians have questioned some of the "victim" narratives of Japanese empire-building (some of which are constructed to conceal Korean collaborationism, for example), so we must be precise when we talk about which views are "fringe".

  Although I couldn't really defend Wingwrong as a valued encyclopedic asset, I also think the manner in which this block was executed lacked "due process", to the extent that such a thing exists on Wikipedia because of custom. Can the block supporters demonstrate any past efforts to sincerely reform Wingwrong into a constructive editor, so that we may not entertain giving him a second chance? Shrigley (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The previous two blocks for the exact same thing [65] should have made it clear that he or she was on an unproductive path. You appear to have misread my post BTW - I think that the block is justified because this is a single purpose account which is being used to push a POV, not that he or she is only editing on a single topic as you seem to have interpreted my comments as. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, the consensus is that denialist is worth being blocked indefinitely. The denialism "is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event." So, if Wingwrong is not a denialist, he should be unblocked. Wingwrong is not denying the Heliocentrism persistent tendentiously. The forced / volunteer discussion is a matter of dispute. In 2009, the Japanese government made a cabinet decision "The evidence that the Japanese army or the military officials seized the women by force was not found.".[66] which is exactly the same discussion Wingwrong made. This matter is worth discussing on the talk page and reflecting to the article. Suppressing the discussion of this matter by blocking the user is a gag rule of Wikipedia. Although I agree Wingwrong's way of discussion is poor probably because a language problem. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The position Wingwrong is trying to push is an isolated, extreme WP:FRINGE position, and the fact that the Japanese government endorses it makes it no less fringe (like the notorious position of the Turkish government on the Armenian genocide). Of course, such denialist fringe positions need to be covered in the article, and it is legitimate to use the article talk page to discuss this coverage. But that's not what Wingwrong was doing. He was using the talkpage not to discuss how to cover the position, but to promote that position. He was challenging Wikipedians to debate and refute its correctness (and is still trying to do so on his own user talkpage now.) This is unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The Wingwrong's blocked edit[67] is simply placing the refute to the each books presented by User:Binksternet. The discussion is always promote the user's position. That is a discussion. A discussion is to "debate and refute its correctness". Nothing to be blamed by bystanders. You should have participated in the discussion instead of blocking the user indefinately. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk)
      • No, on Wikipedia, talk page discussion should never be about promoting our own opinions about historical claims or assessing the merits of such. Talk page discussion must only be about assessing what is the consensus about such matters published in reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, talk page discussions are to discuss ways to improve the article per WP:NPOV and all the other relevant polices, and not to advocate the inclusion of one's own point of view. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
          • It is depended on how a user promote her/his own opinions. If s/he promote her/his opinions by presenting a reliable source as Wingwrong presented to User Talk:Wingwrong#Comfort women's question as Qwyrxian pointed out, nothing is to be blamed by others.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
            • That post on the user talk page is actually a pretty typical example of the problematic behaviour. Wingwrong dismissed the sources on the subject by saying that they have no physical evidence, and then advanced what appears to be another original argument on the subject. That's not how we work. We don't try to criticise the conclusions of sources ourselves, or come up with novel counter-arguments to suggest why the sources may be wrong - our articles are based on what the sources say. This has been explained to Wingwrong numerous times, but they obviously don't get it. Hut 8.5 11:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
              • our articles are based on what the sources say -- except when they don't -- see the recent ANI discussion on what happened to an editor who tried removing unsourced stuff. Warning; it's quite long NE Ent 12:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
              • That was actually an incident of an editor section-blanking verifiable content that is what sources say. NE Ent is completely mischaracterizing something to attempt to support a false assertion. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As documented by OP, Wingwrong's frequency of edits on Comfort Women -- zero -- in the past five months hardly qualify as persistent tendentious editing -- they're not editing at all, they're talking, which is what editors are supposed to do when addressing disputed content. The phrasing persistent offensive advocacy (emphasis mine) makes it appear that Wingwrong's being punished for their political views rather than actual WP disruption. As the advocacy consists of two talk pages posts in five months it hard to see how that is disruptive. We require articles be NPOV, not individual editors. Including minority viewpoint's such as the Japanese government's counterclaims is not POV as long as they are weighted appropriately. There is definitely a confounding issue of their weak English skills making it difficult to parse out exacting what article changes they're advocating, but that would be better addressed through discussion and simple direct questions rather than blocking. NE Ent 13:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with NE Ent. A block for being offensive is a block for being in a small minority that most people in a heated discussion don't like. I agree that Wingwrong is blatantly wrong to advocate it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a block for refusing to follow project orthodoxy. Perhaps Wingwrong should have been blocked some months ago for inserting this kind of thing into the article, but that's apparently not at all what was the basis for this block, and a block now for something several months ago would be quite inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tendencious editing is certainly possible using talk pages, too. There's a point at which repeating discredited notions becomes in and of itself disruptive as it just wears good contributors down trying to deal with it. And as for the whole "saying offensive opinions is always allowed" thing, that's just not the case. A point comes that repetition of an offensive position is disruptive, frankly, much worse incivility than a few F-bombs. If we were dealing with a Holocaust denier, would we even be having this discussion? I doubt it. We'd be throwing away the key. And with good reason: It discredits Wikipedia for us to entertain such people, even on talk pages, and it drives away good contributors to see this happening. The fact that the actocities committed by Imperial Japan are less well-known in the Western world than the Holocaust is does not mean their denial deserves any greater tolerance on Wikipedia talk pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We actually have an article for that ... putting aside the the Godwin's law tangent; it's our mission to "tolerate" reliably sourced minority but not fringe viewpoints. It discredits Wikipedia to censor good faith if misguided opinions we disagree with -- the better solution is education -- explaining to ww the reliable source and original research policies. 16:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mixing up article coverage and talkpage discussion yourself here, and I must say I'm astonished to see an editor of your experience make such a basic mistake. No, it is not our "mission" to "tolerate" advocacy for such viewpoints. It is, of course, our mission to represent them, in articles (which we of course do). But that's not what Wingwrong was trying to do; he was trying to proselytize other editors for them. And it's nothing to do with Godwin's law if we state that proselytizing Japanese war crimes denial is no different from proselytizing Holocaust denial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, invoking Godwin's law is meant to be done when someone inappropriately compares something/someone to the Nazis/Nazism. Comparing forum moderators to Nazis, for example, is inappropriate. Comparing Imperial Japan's war crimes to the Holocaust is wholly appropriate. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

FPaS and Heimstern are absolutely correct here, and this is a good block. There is a massive difference between representing and promoting extreme fringe views. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a substantial difference between blocking for "persistent offensive advocacy" despite only a few incidents and blocking someone who's constantly advocating for a problematic position. Were this the result of more advocacy of the same position, I would support blocking, but not for "persistent offensive advocacy", because that says that certain positions are inherently unwelcome here. Block only after warning the user in a way such as "Sources are consistently strongly against the position that you're taking, so it is disruptive to continue repeating the same arguments over and over again", because keeping it up is thumbing one's nose at everyone else. It's disruptive to get in the way of reasonable discussion on any topic, but what this user did was infrequent enough that it could easily be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Good block. My words before the edit conflict were very much the same as Black Kite's, immediately above, but more verbose - so just read that comment again for my opinion too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock: I see nothing in users contribs since the last block that would indicate this should be extended to indef. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have considered the most recent post and believe that this comment is not a sufficiently sound basis for an indefinite block. Binksternet was citing sources to dispute a claim that prostitution was not generally forced. First source was questioned on the basis that it was a collection of testimony, and such testimonies are not reliable sources for making a factual statement. Looking deeper into that it appears the source is an advocacy organization and thus is not independent of the subject so it can only be reliable as a source about the organization's views. The second it was noted that this was citing a single individual when making the claim. I observe that nearly all of the sources are essentially just going off the testimonies and do not give any indication of independent research into the claims. One of the sources Binkster provided is actually from one of the women who has made these allegations so her book is definitely not a reliable source for anything other than her own view as she is not an independent source. Looking over it, I feel the question about the reliability of these sources are generally apt.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. The first, and probably most significant, is that it appears from their user page Wingwrong does not have a functional grasp of of English. It may be they lack sufficient language competence to successfully participate on the English Wikipedia. Given the language difficulty I can't honestly determine if they're unreasonably pushing a fringe viewpoint or seeking to balance an article. Since we have an article on chemtrails this concept we don't have fringe quackery on Encyclopedia isn't supportable -- the isn't whether it's fringe, it's whether it's a notable fringe/minority viewpoint.
Wingwrong has not been well treated here. They were blocked after making a single edit to Liancourt Rocks for alleged violation of article parole (1rr). After the block expired they asked for clarification / explanation three times on the blocking admins' talk page -- I'm not seeing any evidence onwiki they ever received a reply. While I don't subscribe to the theory an admin has to justify an action to a blocked editor's satisfaction, I'd expect to see some reply per the admin accountability thing. They could've/should've been directed to a policy page or the Teahouse or something. I also see the admin failed to block another editor who was 2rr on the article and instead, asked them to revert. Such preferential treatment simply advances admin conspiracy/cabal theories.
Moving forward I suggest Wingwrong be unblocked with an explanation that Google translate isn't good enough to allow them to participate meaningfully in English Wikipedia and encourage them to focus on jp.wikipedia.org or find a fluent Japanese to English translator to assist them in editing here. NE Ent 19:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I would generally agree with this, though I am not hip to the idea of not allowing him to participate due solely to a language barrier. His comments are not incomprehensible and he seems to have sufficient grasp of English to understand what is going on, even if it hampers his communicative abilities. On a number of occasions he has raised legitimate points regarding articles, including the one in question, and made legitimate contributions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a terribly accurate representation of what happened. This edit was made after coming off a one-month block for the same behaviour. If someone returns from a block of finite duration and repeats the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place then they clearly aren't cooperating and an extension to indef is reasonable. In that edit Wingwrong dismissed various sources on the grounds that they don't measure up to their personal standards of proof, which is clear original research. If you look back over the talk page you can see that Wingwrong has made numerous previous comments dismissing sources for an alleged lack of physical evidence and other personal reasons, so they obviously haven't listened to the explanations of how Wikipedia works that they received. The article probation on Liancourt Rocks is much stricter than a simple 1RR restriction, as you can see from the box here. The fact that we have encyclopedic coverage of fringe views is simply irrelevant here - it certainly isn't justification for tenaciously pushing those views in violation of core policies. Hut 8.5 21:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A user previously warned and repeatedly blocked for serious problem behavior, who is warned then that further misbehavior may result in an indefinite block, does not require further additional warnings prior to indefinite blocking. It is already established that advocacy of war crime denialism is disruptive of the encyclopedia and brings it into disrepute and is serious problem behavior, though this set of war crimes are not the ones we most often have to respond to denialism about. Good block. A more verbose block message with links to all the history would have avoided the confusion, perhaps, but the warnings and prior block notices are still in the users' talk page.

This would not be controversial if this were a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier. This is not exactly as bad but is along the same lines. It's nearly as offensive to Koreans, and similar denialism about atrocities in China and elsewhere is to those peoples, as the Holocaust deniers are to survivors and descendants of the Shoah. It may not be as well known in the west, but that's not a good reason to treat it differently.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Free images

I'd appreciate some admin eyes on : Category:Possibly_free_images , Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)