Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258

Notifying users of a sockpuppet 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.

---

I had always been under the impression that any administrative (or higher) action being discussed about a user required that the users involved or accused must be notified, so I added this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header. It was reverted here by Legoktm with the edit summary of "no you don't". Since when? If a user is being discussed on WP:AN or WP:ANI (or any of the related boards), they must be notified. If the user is being discussed in a mediation or in an arbitration case, they must be notified. Why is WP:SPI special? It's not like they can do anything to hide evidence already created, so there no need for secrecy. Please share your thoughts on this issue. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified Legoktm here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could have asked me before coming here? It's pretty simple, why should we notify LTAs that we've detected their socks? Legoktm (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As this involves more than just you and me, I brought it here for broader input. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really, but okay. Legoktm (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it involves only you and me. Things are done by consensus here on Wikipedia. I was WP:BOLD and made a change, it was reverted by you, so now we are here to find out what the rest of the community thinks. I brought the issue to everyone so it can be discussed and a consensus reached. Whatever is decided will be fine with me, even if I disagree with the final decision. How is that a bad thing? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought we only notified unblocked editors? With LTAs they'll be blocked anyway, so there's no point in notifying them as they won't be able to take part in the SPI anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue which prompted this involved an unblocked editor. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, a blanket rule like the one you tried to add won't work. Each case needs to be considered on it's own. Clerks will notify a user if they feel its appropriate and the filer didn't. Legoktm (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So modify it to suggest it be done in some cases (like a clueless newbie who isn't really doing it maliciously). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the sockpuppet discussions to remain under the radar, as it were, with regard to the person who is about to get blocked. This prevents them from learning more about how we detect them. For editors who have been making many useful edits, perhaps they can be notified as a courtesy. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binks here. I never file a report unless I am 95-100% sure, so not notifying the editor decreases drama. And like B says, gives the master acct less info about his tells. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This argument doesn't really hold water since once a sock is blocked, they have one of the various sockpuppet templates placed on their user page, and all of those templates link directly to the SPI discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this change (which should have been discussed with the SPI team beforehand) for the same reasons as Legoktm. Of course, established users should be notified, but not for trolls who enjoy being reported to SPI (and I'm not being sarcastic, some actually do). --Rschen7754 21:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:BOLD indicates that all such changes need to be discussed with the self-appointed "SPI team" (whoever that is). As this was a rather minor change in the grand scheme of things, I didn't see a reason to discuss it beforehand, though you'll note that I didn't get in an edit war and immediately brought it up for discussion to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding things. As I already posted here, I'm fine with it either way, however consensus determines. I'm not crusading for one way or the other. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CUOS and WP:SPI/C; the SPI team is not self-appointed. Furthermore, it's common courtesy to ask the people who actually do the work in any organized area of Wikipedia, be it ArbCom, SPI, BAG, AFC, DYK, FAC, DRN, CHU, etc. before you go around making changes in their procedures. I expected a bit better from a bureaucrat. --Rschen7754 00:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Outside of Checkusers, they are all self-appointed as clerks can be "any user in good standing" (with training, as it notes), and administrators are welcome to help without any caveats. Pretty much anyone who wants to help in the process is welcome to do so. Regardless of that, almost all pages on the site can be edited by anyone, including project pages, with or without discussion. As I keep stating, and as people keep ignoring, I didn't see it as a significant change in anything. Getting all worked up over a tiny things such as this is not worth the time it is taking. The change I made was reverted, and I brought it here for discussion. I haven't ever tried to force people to keep it. I haven't said Legoktm was wrong to remove it (though I did ask if I was remembering things correctly with my, "Since when?", above). It appears I was incorrect in my reasoning on this one point, and that's fine. You're blowing this far out of proportion to the change I made in good faith.

And quite waving your holier-than-thou "I expected a bit better from a bureaucrat." over my head. I have never claimed to be infallible, and that's certainly not a prerequisite for being a 'crat. I'm sure you make mistakes, too. Many procedures and guidelines have been changed over the years without extensive (or even any) discussion, especially when it's a low-impact, non-critical part such as user notification (which is handled for logged-in users by the notification system, as pointed out by someone below). I wasn't expected to be attacked by people when I brought the issue here for discussion. If you can't participate in a discussion without flinging underhanded insults like "I expected a bit better from a bureaucrat." (implying that I'm somehow perfect and will never make a mistake, and therefore have failed for perhaps making one), then perhaps it's time for reevaluating how you interact with people. I made the edit in good faith, thinking it was a good thing to do and just overlooked for some reason. It appears there was good reason behind leaving it out, and I can accept that reasoning. This is the whole reason I brought it here, to make sure of the reasoning behind removing my good faith edit. That's it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Outside of Checkusers, they are all self-appointed as clerks can be "any user in good standing" (with training, as it notes)" - no, we regularly decline candidates for clerkship.

My issue here isn't that you made a mistake, it's that you are showing a gross lack of respect for people who actually work at a Wikipedia process, and not valuing their input. And then, you took it to AN, to override what the SPI team would say. It's that you don't see the issue with barging in and changing the instructions for a process that is disconcerting. --Rschen7754 01:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read the page (WP:SPI/C)? It specifically states a clerk can be "any user in good standing" (with the training I mentioned, and that it mentions, emphasis added). To quote the third paragraph on the page in full: "Clerkship is open to any user in good standing after an extended period as a trainee. Administrators are also welcome to help at SPI by patrolling."

As for your other allegation, I'm not showing any lack of respect for anyone at SPI, and I certainly value their input. That's why I brought the question here and notified interested parties at WT:SPI. I specifically wanted their input (as well as that of the rest of the community). I didn't bring it here to "override what the SPI team would say". You're assuming far too much and trying to read my mind, and you're not very good at it. The SPI process does not belong only to those who are currently working in that area; rather, it belongs to the community as a whole. You seem to me to be trying to wall off your own little private garden there and getting all huffy because someone (in this case, me) made a good faith edit, correcting what I thought was an simple oversight, and then accusing me of motives I don't and have never had just because I opened a discussion about it? I've respected you as a great contributor for years, Rschen, and this attitude really surprises me. I'm not trying to step on toes here. I'm simply trying to find out the reasoning behind Legoktm's actions. Now I understand them, and I'm fine with the reasoning. It makes sense. You don't need to keep attacking my motives and accusing me of things which are blatantly untrue. I have great respect for all of the volunteers who help with Wikipedia in whatever capacity they choose to help. So don't say I don't, and don't accuse me of things about which you have no clue. I came here to have a discussion about the issue, not to be beaten up for doing something which seemed to be good at the time. I've already admitted my mistake, but I'm not willing to fall on my sword over something as insignificant as this. As I stated before, you are blowing this far out of proportion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been involved in the selection process with quite a few clerks, so I'm well aware of how it works. In practice, very few non-admins are selected for the role, as a non-admin clerk cannot block; furthermore, CUs make the final decisions regarding who can be a full clerk, and the standard is fairly high. You may also want to read through the actual selection process WT:SPI/C.

I fully understand that you may not have realized the impact that such a change would have at SPI. But in general you would probably have gotten a similar reaction if you had done something similar at FAC, or DYK - yet even more so here, because the entire process at SPI is to aid the CheckUsers, who are legally liable to the Foundation for any bad checks that they make, and thus have to abide by policies that are not determined by community consensus. That's where being BOLD may be your right, but doing something without asking, or telling people who work there how their process works, will step on toes. I don't want to go on and on about this on AN as we're getting off topic and repetitive, but I hope that you'll take this into consideration in the future. And for the record, my statements were not meant to come off as insulting, and I apologize if it came off that way. --Rschen7754 08:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Notifying is discretionary on the part of the filer or anyone who is investigating that feels that there is a need. Sometimes we do but most of the time we don't as it isn't required. Many socks have a history of bringing disruption to cases and it is better to not invite them to the party. Also, there are considerations such as beans in line with Binksternet & Diannaa's concerns. I concur with Rschen7754.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding that your impression "I had always been under the impression that any administrative (or higher) action being discussed about a user required that the users involved or accused must be notified..." isn't correct. We never notify vandals to explain their actions at AIV for example.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. You are incorrect about my impression, though, because that was my impression at the time I wrote that. I couldn't, off the top of my head, think of any such incident boards where we didn't do that. I haven't done much with AIV for a few years, so I'm not surprised my quick interneal, "Can I think of any places where we don't do this?" process overlooked that one. It is an exception to the rule, however, as is (apparently) SPI. As I noted above, perhaps an instruction would be in order which suggests notification in the case of established editors, or in cases where it doesn't appear the person was doing it maliciously but rather out of frustration. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The change was (rightly) reversed. The next step was to discuss the suggested change on the policy/process talkpage, as per WP:BRD. ES&L 21:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A link to the discussion was placed on the talk page of WP:SPI and the discussion was placed here in order to get more visibility for the discussion. I didn't initially place one on WT:SOCK, but I've put one there now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's just a bit disturbing that such lapses should come from a bureaucrat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a lapse, but rather not seeing a valid reason (initially) for not having that bit of instruction there when it was common across almost all other such incident boards. Apparently being a 'crat now means a person must be perfect. I don't remember that being in the job description, nor am I aware of any 'crat (or admin, or editor) here who is perfect. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of WP:BRD isn't just limited to n00bs :-) ES&L 22:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor are mistakes. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. I can't say that I have every nuance of Wikipedia memorized, nor do I think anyone does. We make mistakes, learn from them, and move on. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone has an account, WP:Notifications will automatically let the person know that the account has been mentioned on the SPI page. A long-term abuser can be expected to have the SPI page watch-listed. For IP editors, it would be a courtesy to let them know they've been reported. —rybec 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The WP:DENY principal adapts well in this situation also. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see it applying in many or most cases at SPI. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had converted most of those templates to use {{noping}}...blegh. Legoktm (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the discussions currently listed at WP:SPI. Apart from {{checkuser}} (which pings the potential socks), many of the discussions link to one or more of the accounts in the evidence or discussion. If users aren't to be notified, people should also avoid linking to accounts that way. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The instructions here do mention notification, but for the reasons stated above, it is only a suggestion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see this as yet another case where the thinking behind WP:DENY produces a perverse result. As mentioned above, persistent abusers have tools available to see any relevant SPIs and will probably use them. Thus the attempted secrecy will fail of its intended purpose. The people actually affected by lack of notification will be innocent users incorrectly named, especially IP users. Notification should be mandatory, just as it is here. DES ^(talk) 16:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed , yes anytime someone's mentioned in a sockpuppet investigation, they should be notified.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a bad conclusion and were we to accept it then it would mean that we have always been blocking the innocents. If you frequented WP:SPI enough then you would have the experience to know that isn't the outcome of our cases; you would also know it because editors would have been complaining about incorrect outcomes on multiple noticeboards. Usually the complaint is that we are backlogged and not that we are doing the job incorrectly. But if we are, the first place that you would start would be WT:SPI which is where you would hold any such discussion on mandatory notices...it wouldn't be decided here as this isn't the right place to form consensus on that issue.

This discussion was held because of someone's misunderstanding of BOLD. It applies to article space but not to the operational areas. This is generally covered in the section Wikipedia:BOLD#Non-article namespaces but is specifically covered in Wikipedia:BOLD#Wikipedia namespace <== SPI is within that namespace. The place to have discussed this should have been on WT:SPI just as the first place you should discuss being reverted in an article would be that article's talk page. Jumping straight to this noticeboard was incorrect process albeit made in good faith.

(...and now a word from our sponsor) Learn how you can help out at SPI. We invite you all to begin reading cases and helping where you can. This also gives the opportunity for review to anyone who thinks that we are missing our marks and convicting the innocent.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that you have mostly been blocking innocents (although I do think that some SPI regulars are a bit overly confident in their conclusions). I said that actual long-term abusers will learn of SPI filings whether you notify or not, so it is only the occasional incorrectly-accused user or collateral-damage IP who is affected by the lack of notification. And this, or perhaps VPP, is a fine place for such policy discussions. DES ^(talk) 18:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mandatory notification of SPI listings is akin to waving a red cape in front of a bull. The disruption a group of socks can generate in an investigation is a time-suck for clerks and CUs and only serves to provide the attention some of the sock masters crave. Will some socks show up at an SPI regardless of notification? Yes. Should we invite them there? No. Editors opening cases are given the latitude to use their best judgement to decide whether informing the potential socks of an open case is prudent. Making it mandatory only serves to add more bureaucracy to an already complicated process with minimal benefit and possible detriment. Would editors requesting CU assistance via IRC or email also be required to provide a mandatory notice to the suspected sock/master? The modus operandi of sockpuppeting is subterfuge, yet you are endorsing shining as much light as possible on those trying to limit the disruption quickly and quietly. If it's not apparent, I would oppose any mandatory notification. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What Ponyo said. There is no benefit to requiring us to inform long term abusers that we have caught them socking for the 250th time, it only encourages them. Yes, it is a courtesy that should normally be extended to established users, but it should not be a hard requirement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Importantly, as noted above, if an account is reported and not notified (whether deliberately or accidentally), and any clerk believes that the account should be notified, then the clerks provide notices themselves. A failure to require notifications does not mean that people aren't finding out.

And let's remember the practical issues: if you require notification for everyone, even LTA and DENY cases, then we're just going to see more SPIs filed in e-mail. I've seen people brag about their socks offwiki. We've had people ask to be listed at WP:BANLIST. It's a game for some of them. We need to use discretion to stop rewarding them for breaking the rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Are you seriously asking us to make notifications all the way around when we have to expand something like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive? Think about it for a moment: if you're a prolific socker, and you know that you'll be told when your sock has been caught, you can know at any moment which socks are still safe! Also, Nihonjoe, a bureaucrat should know that this page isn't for proposals: that's why we have WP:VP/Pr. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't a proposal. I was simply asking for clarification. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I like that Nihonjoe came here to ask for clarification. That said, Beeblebrox sums it up as good as anyone. Why notify them for the some hundredth time that they are being given a CU. The fact is LTA's tend to enjoy disruption, so the less obvious we make it, the quicker they'll get bored of it and the less the LTA's will continue popping up. That said, if you have a user with lots of experience, which includes loads of featured content, community trust, and perhaps advanced tools, then they should be notified that they're being checked out. That said, WhatamIdoing is also right in saying that not notifying them doesn't mean they don't know the secrets of SPIs and LTAs. So I'd say leave it up to the discretion of the clerk. Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 03:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Awesome - Requiring people to notify everyone who is subject to a sock investigation should have a twofold benefit: one- a massive increase in bureaucracy and nonproductive work, since each and every account listed in the investigation should and must be notified (after all, they could be different people who just seem similar, that's what the SPI will determine); and two- a big increase in the time needed to run around chasing egregious sockmasters who will just abandon socks as soon as they get a notification, reset their router and create a new one. This sounds like fun! - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:47, 18 December 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.

SPI merge?

User:Movieeditor229 seems to be a sock of User:Niloy229 itself, but there's two separate SPIs open. Should Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Movieeditor229 be merged into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niloy229? Frood 17:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Frood: Yes, I have done so. Feel free to re-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niloy229 if you find more socks. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Draft namespace live

Just in case you weren't watching, we now have a new Draft namespace. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Draft namespace live and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Draft namespace being enabled soon. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

we have it, thankfully, and there is consensus to use it for AfCs , and probably other things, but we need to be careful not to actually put material there until there is some degree of agreement on how to do it, without messing up exxisting processes and templates. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a bunch of drafts in my userspace which I would like to move over to the new namespace immediately. So far as I know, there are no template issues that would arise from such a move. Is there any particular development that I need to wait for, or can I go ahead with it? (I see that there are about a dozen drafts in the namespace already). bd2412 T 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a few. I suspect whatever is done with them will have to be done over once we have a working procedure for how to handle them. I suggest it would be helpful not to add to their number. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I accept your reasoning, and will refrain. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

VR.5 -- "new editor getting started"

VR.5 is an article about a TV show. Looking at the edit history of the article since April of this year, a weirdly high percentage of the edits are by different editors and are tagged with "new editor getting started". It seems fishy to me. I can't think of why this article would attract such a high proportion of new editors. Or maybe it really does, I'm not sure. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be creating a huge problem with the article, although a lot of those edits haven't really improved it. Thoughts? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:GettingStarted and this archived explanation. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, John of Reading. I've read through those two links, and the inference seems to be that, as part of the Getting Started program, that article is one of many that are being suggested for new editors to work on. So that makes sense so far. But, how does Getting Started decide which articles to suggest? I was thinking it might be based on some kind of maintenance category but I don't see that on the VR.5 article, although I'm not an expert on this so I might be looking in the wrong place. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The second link says that suggestions are randomly taken from the "copyediting category", after BLPs and some other things are removed. DES ^(talk) 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In this case tht seems to be Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from November 2012, a hidden cat. DES ^(talk) 00:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DES. And the article is in that category because it has a {{copy edit}} in it -- even though the copy edit category can not be seen, even when editing the article -- right? So that makes sense. Does that make it one of the "improve clarity" suggested articles an editor goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GettingStarted ? And if yes, how do articles get suggested for "add links" and "fix spelling and grammar"? Or better yet, is there a page that explains all this? (And if not, shouldn't there be?) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mudwater: The categories are those listed here. The usual way for an article to be listed in those categories is via the tags {{Copy edit}}, {{Confusing}} and {{Underlinked}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Brilliant, thanks! — Mudwater ^(Talk)

Italy article hacked

I went to the Italy article and it has been both hacked and vandalized, with a subversive message on the upper part. Also, in the background it has a sexually offensive image. Can anyone fix it?

--Workalot (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed, the article itself wasn't touched, but probably one of the unprotected templates on it was altered. SirFozzie (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It was fixed --Workalot (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have been more than usual template vandalism in the last week. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot bot is again not working

• A look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot 's history shows that the bot User:DeltaQuadBot, which adds more suspect usernames to page Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, restarted after a long gap and ran for a while about 1 a.m. on 14 December 2013 and found and reported 23 suspect usernames, but has not run again in the 5 days since. Please, what is happening? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For quick reference, the original inquiry is archived here. User:DeltaQuad said he was working on it, so you might want to drop by his talk page. Or draw a wider audience at Wikipedia talk:Bot owners' noticeboard. Rgrds. --64.85.216.158 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: sorry that shouldn't be the talk page, that should be Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. (Same dynamic IP as before, it changes when I log off). Rgrds. --64.85.216.216 (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:TOPRED up to 940

Well, TOPRED is now up to 940 links, about 800 of which are +m/+n patterns. This is about 150 larger than it was four weeks ago when the +m/+n problem first showed up, and 650 larger than when I last made a redirect for these. A lot of attention was paid when I was doing something about it, and now it seems to have fallen off of everyone's radar. But the problem hasn't gone away - it's only gotten worse - and all the people who were so quick to criticise and issue threats haven't done a thing about it. So is anyone going to follow through on any of the previous discussions and actually try to fix this, or are we going to pretend like 1 1/2 million redlink hits a week aren't happening? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing these are legitimate red links being searched for. Do humans have a problem with their pinkie finger on Wikipedia and hit m or n a lot? I don't think so. If you're asking if you think Lincoln (2012 film)m, Portal (video game)m and List of Family Guy episodesn need to turn blue for the sake of top red links being filled, no, we don't. If it's a matter of the report being bad and adding m's and n's on the ends of article titles then that will have to be fixed some other way, and creating a ton of really bad redirects isn't the way. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, these are links that are being mangled somewhere, not "searches". The problem is, the mangled links are being followed, and people (or bots) are being directed to a non-existent page, and I got jumped on for fixing it. But the detractors have had two weeks to do something about it - to try to find out where they were coming from, and why we were getting mangled hits - and they've done nothing. So count me as pissed. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 14:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well being pissed doesn't justify going against repeated consensus at RFD not to create trailing m/n redirects for articles, or a thread here at AN really. I'm not sure what can really be accomplished here. Either it will get fixed and the problem will get resolved, or it won't and we will get reports with mistakes or misleading information on them until it is fixed. If you want to ping those involved in fixing the error, then that might be the better way to find out if there is any progress, not pinging a bunch of administrators who can't do anything about it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, A) that's a flat out lie. All of those redirects were made before there was an AN post or RfD about them, let alone consensus against their creation. and B) I posted here because this is where this matter has been discussed, and since neither you, nor anyone who commented on the previous discussion, has lifted a finger in the last two weeks to find out where this traffic is coming from, let alone done anything to mitigate it, I figured you all should know that your doing absolutely nothing hasn't solved the problem. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 15:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Moe, you've failed to propose any solution to the problem: the only way for editors to make this page useful again is to convert these into bluelinks. These clearly don't go against WP:RFD#DELETE 1-7 or 9-10, and 8 is overridden by the fact that they are useful because they make the real TOPRED links findable. Improving an encyclopedia is the goal here: having these pages as redlinks impairs that goal, and having them as bluelinks helps that goal. The point in coming here appears to have been to ask us administrators to shut down opposition that doesn't have the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, turning them blue Nyttend would go against the consensus of a couple RFDs that have already taken place. The last one ended sometime last week and I believe you participated. So are you going to override consensus with a supervote under the guise of "improving the encyclopedia" because a user subpage isn't useful with errors? That seems more problematic on your part than a page reporting errors. I can't fix the errors on the report, I have nothing to do with it. Those who are involved probably are investigating the problem, though I can't be sure since I don't follow them around. Obviously you got the short stick on the consensus discussion, but that doesn't mean I'm here not to improve the encyclopedia. If you really think additional m's and n's on the end of titles are good redirects, go ahead and re-create them. I'll see you at RFD. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Having monitored traffic that arrives at a couple of small servers over a long period of time, I can assure onlookers that trying to make sense of what happens on the Internet is pointless—it's just random crap. For three months, a significant amount of our (not Wikipedia) incoming traffic was attempts from China to open a connection with some nonexistent port on a nonexistent IP (in our IP range, but an IP that had never been used, and a port that had never been used on any of our servers). While the persistent red links may be a lot of different users with the same typing malady, it is much more likely to be someone experimenting with a spambot, or a bored kid laughing at how they can push nonsense onto TOPRED and get editors to spend hours debating whether it should be redirected somewhere. Just ignore it, or make a list of titles to ignore and modify the software that generates TOPRED to ignore unwanted titles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• I have trouble seeing why there is a need to "do" anything about this, and frankly I question the wisdom of even having such a list. The idea that, because of this list, we should create List of misconceptions about illegal drugs" \l "Man slices off his face and feeds it to dogs or Sierra Boring ass is not an idea that is likely to be supported by the community or by logic and common sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Beeblebrox; we absolutely don't need to create these ridiculous pages simply because they show up in a report. We should be focusing on how to rid the report of them. @West.andrew.g:, is there any way to create an "exclude" list of obviously bad titles that can be used in conjection with this report, so that the report does not show them? Ideally it could be something that's regular expression-aware, like the spam blacklist, but even a simple list would be a great start. 28bytes (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As the individual who generates WP:TOPRED, I couldn't agree more that this has been blown out of proportion. Sure, I can generate a list that doesn't have "m" and "n" ending red links. But next week it will be something different. People need to follow consensus as to whether redirects should be created or not so we have some policy moving forward. I don't feel the list is the problem, but people are the problem (and I'm not taking sides). The list has taught us something interesting about percent encodings and what I presume to be a buggy bot/API. I don't know what data the analytics team has at their disposal, but I would be interested to see if these problematic cases have referrer headers or IP sources that trace back to a single or narrow IP range. If we had evidence this was some really boring, non-human activity it might help in achieving consensus. West.andrew.g (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Creation or deletion doesn't matter to me, and I would really like everyone to stop debating this non-issue either way. Until we have the opinion of the devs on whether or not these edits could be created by human or bot these 'evidence' are not really conclusive, and honestly who better to ask on questions of software than the MediaWiki community? As I said earlier though, the devs might come up with a solution on the tech side to the problem, and there are a few questions I've posed in a deletion discussion to consider; once the correct encoding is put in place to convert the javascript into percent-encoding, what will happen to the redirects? Will they continue to inflate the PAGECOUNT and remain inaccessible to everyone but devs because they're hidden 'underneath' the new encoding, or will they be absorbed into the new software seamlessly and the previously created 'redirects' deleted? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note also the ongoing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 9#\x22Weird Al\x22 Yankovic, another TOPRED deletion discussion which can use more input. (I don't think it was linked from here yet). Fram (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• MediaWiki's search already gives you a "Did you mean" prompt if you search for a title similar to that of an existing page. People make typos all the time; I don't see why this shouldn't be integrated into the page you get when you try to access a non-existent page. Perhaps people are using external applications that just try to access a page directly instead of going through Special:Search. That page does have a link to Special:Search, but stuffed down into the wall of text that most people will just ignore (see banner blindness). I would advocate that MediaWiki integrate search into the "non-existent title" page. The project exists to serve the readers, and we should make things easy for them. Perhaps in the meantime the MediaWiki: page containing the "non-existent page" message could be changed to make the Search link more prominent.

Also I notice the "Special centralautologin start?type=1x1" title appears to correspond to:

<img src="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1x1" alt="" title="" width="1" height="1" style="border: none; position: absolute;" />

which shows up in the page source, and I assume is a tracking pixel for CentralAuth. Looks like some clients are mangling it. Maybe the devs should be notified about this if they haven't been. --108.38.196.65 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Examining the cause

My examination shows the +m/+n page views are usually very consistently around 10-13% of the page views on the corresponding real page, including when those views go up and down from day to day. Compare for example http://stats.grok.se/en/201312/Great%20Wall%20of%20China and http://stats.grok.se/en/201312/Great%20Wall%20of%20Chinam. The latter adds 'm' to Great Wall of China. The real title has fairly consistently been around 6000 daily views for years, so the +m issue doesn't appear to affect page views of the real title. The +m views started low on 31 October 2013 and climbed until reaching 10-13% of real page views on 11 November. Compare November stats: http://stats.grok.se/en/201311/Great%20Wall%20of%20China and http://stats.grok.se/en/201311/Great%20Wall%20of%20Chinam. Many other +m pages follow a similar pattern: The views started low around October 31 and gradually climbed until reaching 10-13% of real views where they stay. This makes me conclude: This is very unlikely to be an external program which keeps requesting the same page. There is no way this would consistently generate 10-13% of our traffic on lots of affected pages for weeks. We get a lot of our traffic from Google but we have large variations in the number of internal wikilinks and the popularity of the pages containing them. When page views of real titles look "natural", there is no reason page views of +m titles should follow them so closely unless the problem is internal. I can think of three scenarios:

1. For certain real pages, 10-13% of normal page views (including human readers) are incorrectly by our own software directed to a +m/+n page instead.
2. 10-13% of page views on certain real pages are incorrectly reported as instead being on a +m/+n page.
3. 10-13% of page views on certain real pages also cause an additional page view (maybe not seen by a human) of a +m/+n page.

There is a way to discover human readers: Ask them! We could place something like this on a few "popular" +m/+n pages with hundreds of daily views reported:

"You were probably looking for [[real title without m/n]], but there appears to be an error and we would really like to know how you got here instead. Please report it at (new section url to page collecting reports). Note that your report will be visible to everyone so don't reveal anything you wish to keep private. If you post without logging in to a Wikipedia account then your IP address will be revealed. Report as much of the following as you know and are willing to publish (this could also be specified with a preloaded page in the edit link):

• How you arrived at the wrong page, including the exact url to a page where you may have clicked a link to get there.
• The exact url of the page where you saw the request for the report, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_wall_of_chinam
• Your browser and version number.
• Your location (city and country)."

We could also ask people to view the end of the html source of the wrong url and report the server name after "Served by", but many don't know how to view the html source and the server may have changed by the time they look at it. I admit it would be an untraditional use of mainspace but finding the cause is important if they are human views, and if they are not then few humans will be bothered by the message. Maybe it would be better with a shorter mainspace message like "You were probably looking for [[real title without m/n]], but please report at (link) how you got here instead." Before we consider going forward with this, is there somebody who can examine the "rawest" version of the page view stats to check whether the "Great_wall_of_chinam" views are there and weren't added later by mistake? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I downloaded one of the log files provided by the WMF, http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/2013/2013-12/pagecounts-20131214-010011.gz (chosen because I expected it to contain the most requests for Great_Wall_of_Chinam/Great_Wall_of_Chinan) and found that the "m" and "n" requests were logged there. They're not an artefact of West.andrew.g's script.

Here's an extract for the Great_Wall_of_China example. Note the one request for simple:Great_wall_of_chinam.

requests to all sites for titles containing "great", "wall", "of" and "china" (any order, any case)

bs Datoteka:Map_of_the_Great_Wall_of_China.jpg 1 13663 commons.m Category:Great_Wall_of_China 1 29053 commons.m Category:Great_Wall_of_China_at_Jinshanling 1 11414 commons.m File:Great_Wall_of_China,_Satellite_image.jpeg 5 54449 commons.m File:Great_Wall_of_China.jpeg 1 10606 commons.m File:Great_Wall_of_China.jpg 1 0 commons.m File:Great_Wall_of_China_%281010067%29.jpg 4 32160 commons.m File:Great_Wall_of_China_July_2006.JPG 1 16265 commons.m File:Great_Wall_of_China_location_map.PNG 5 76310 commons.m File:Great_Wall_of_China_location_map_blank.PNG 2 19196 commons.m File:Map_of_the_Great_Wall_of_China.jpg 12 173710 commons.m File:The_Great_Wall_of_China_in_sand.JPG 1 0 en File:Great_Wall_of_China,_Satellite_image.jpeg 2 21386 en File:Great_Wall_of_China_July_2006.JPG 2 31788 en File:Great_Wall_of_China_location_map.PNG 5 48935 en File:Map_of_the_Great_Wall_of_China.jpg 22 347296 en File:The_Great_Wall_of_China_at_Jinshanling.jpg 8 72630 en Great%20Wall%20of%20China 1 20 en Great_Wall_of_China 143 6242731 en Great_Wall_of_China_hoax 1 11690 en Great_Wall_of_Chinam 18 862829 en Great_Wall_of_Chinan 4 225008 en Great_wall_of_china 3 137043 en Great_wall_of_china_marathon_2011_tours 1 7038 ja %E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Great_wall_of_china-mutianyu_4.JPG 2 26390 pl Plik:Map_of_the_Great_Wall_of_China.jpg 1 14468 pt Ficheiro:Great_Wall_of_China,_Satellite_image.jpeg 1 12188 pt Ficheiro:Great_Wall_of_China_July_2006.JPG 1 18196 pt Ficheiro:Great_Wall_of_China_location_map_blank.PNG 2 22329 simple Great_wall_of_chinam 1 61208 simple Talk:Great_Wall_of_China 1 7307 th %E0%B9%84%E0%B8%9F%E0%B8%A5%E0%B9%8C:Great_Wall_of_China_location_map.PNG 1 43754 zh File:Map_of_the_Great_Wall_of_China.jpg 1 16678

—rybec 23:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose another theoretical scenario would be a bug in a browser version or operating system at least 10-13% of readers have, but I don't see why that would give so consistent mishits on some pages and none on most others. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the m and n might be encoding issues related to returns/new-lines/line-feeds. \n is a common encoding for a new-line. I could see a quoting script converting a return at the end of a URL into that and then a broken decoder treating the backslash as a simpler quoting character and being dropped yielding an n at the end of the URL. Likewise another way I could see a return encoded would be as ^m, there are a few ways I could see bugs in programs and scripts that could convert this into a m that would also occur at the end of the URL. PaleAqua (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd also expect p to show up occasionally from similar errors parsing the <p> html tag. PaleAqua (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-UK and the absurdities of Commons

Files are routinely moved to Commons from here. This is, of course, a good thing, but we need to be careful that so moving does not cause the files to disappear.

Commons has a bad habit of depreciating templates that were made consistent with other Wikipedias, but not bothering to update the corresponding templates. On English Wikipedia, Template:PD-UK is the only template for describing UK copyright law beyond a simple Template:PD-Old-70. However, on Commons, any file tagged with PD-UK is automatically nominated for deletion. Instead, one is meant to use Commons:Template:PD-UK-anon, a license does not exist on En-Wiki, or Template:PD-Old-70, as appropriate.

I don't know how much we can do about Commons. It can be an exceptionally stupid place. One possibility might be to give in, and copy the templates they prefer over here, and institute a sane review system for things tagged PD-UK and other such templates, to update them to the ones Commons prefers. However, as I said, Commons can be a stupid and arbitrary place, and there's no guarantee they won't do this to another template.

Indeed, it would not surprise me if whole rafts of templates we have would cause automatic flagging for deletion should the file be moved to Commons. A terrible, terrible situation.

Commons discussion: commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template:PD-UK_-_a_major_problem_in_implementation Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem. You aren't supposed to move files with a bot and not review them yourself. The template gives very clear instructions on what tags may apply instead. If you just reviewed your own files, there would be no problem. It is automatically tagged for deletion because there is a review system, and that's the uploader. For the anon template , move to enwiki yourself if you want. I might do it later if that's what you're all worked up about. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 13:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a disproportionate and inappropriate response by Commons to what is, at the very most, a minor issue. Because of the CommonsDelinker bot, undoing a deletion fully is almost impossible - all usages of the file will be long gone, and there is no way to reverse the bot. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're too lazy to review your own files, admins and other editors will review it. See the response at the Commons discussion by User:Stefan2 as well. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually Adam Cuerden, your whole basis is wrong. The template that Commons has exists on enwiki. It just doesn't have the same redirect. I will now create that redirect since it is too hard to do. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirect now in place at Template:PD-UK-anon. I guess this is  Done now. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. I think you're missing the whole point, and the general nature of the problem. Once something's deleted, all usages are removed by bot, and there is no undo on that. As such, the bizarre behaviour at commons can screw us over, if just two people don't display sufficient care. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

All you need to do is to read WP:CSD#F8. Once you have read that, you will find that everything is  Done. Per WP:CSD#F8, admins deleting files here as F8 should check that they have been cleaned up properly on Commons, or else they can't be deleted locally. Also, CommonsDelinker's delinking can easily be undone by looking at the delinker log for the deleted files. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Why would it be deleted? It's not deleted immediately. Editors review it before it is deleted. You need to review files you upload. I don't understand why this is so hard. User:Stefan2 just told you how to undo the bot if the file here and at Commons is deleted but per WP:CSD#F8, files here shouldn't be deleted if the file at Commons is in danger of deletion. What you're basically saying that if 4 people are very lazy, including yourself, you might have to undo a bot's edits? Just stop trying to create a problem out of thin air. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

{{keeplocal}} or {{Do not move to Commons}} Rmhermen (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see why it's necessary to have such a problematic process in the first place. This isn't really anything to do with my own files, it's something I noticed, and thought I should bring it to the attention of people, and am somewhat shocked that it's not seen as a problem, since, apparently, it's presumed admins never make a single error from rushing to do a large batch of files at once. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Crap. I had a fit about this on Wikien-L earlier this year, and the consensus (which was widely agreed to) was that the bot should stop removing local images after a Commons move, as it doesn't save space or anything (the images aren't *actually* removed off the servers when "removed" locally...). And then it got dropped because I had surgery and stopped paying attention for a couple of months. Can we get a local consensus here on-wiki and then direct the bot's owner... ? ...! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD closed as delete, article not deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Wong was closed (a non-admin closure) as delete, but Jennifer Wong has not been deleted—is this the right place to report this?

Thanks!

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the article was deleted at AFD over 3 years ago, recreated earlier this year, and an IP editor has put up an AFD template with a link to the old discussion. Since this version of the article is substantially different from the deleted version (mainly it contains many sources that appear reliable at face value), it would have to go through a new AFD to be deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, to clarify: the editor who closed that 2010 AfD was an admin at the time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. It never occured to me that ghosts of departed AfD's might come wafting by at WP:AFD/T. How odd. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, saw this a couple of hours late. I saw the old discussion in the log and removed it. I also removed the template from the article and left a note with the new editor who tried to nominate it. I've offered to log a second nomination if anyone so wishes. Apologies for any confusion. Stalwart111 10:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

please consider banning User:Smartguy1413

User:Smartguy1413 has had no constructive edits as far as I can tell: [1] as such, I suggest that a ban would make a lot of sense. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think what you mean is a block. The typical process is to give escalating warnings until level 4, and then report to ARV. He's only received a level 1 and level 2 warning so far, so I gave him a level 4. His recent contribs (midget, dwarf, little person) I guess could maybe be argued to be made in good faith. The rest are obvious vandalism. It doesn't look like we'd be losing anything with an indef. However, please be careful about your language as well; some of your comments have been a little abrasive. It's best to try to stay as dispassionate as possible, even in cases of vandalism. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I couldn't actually discover what is really meant by ban on Wikipedia, but it's the term used almost everywhere else on the web for what I was thinking. The level 4 warning should be enough I guess. I understand your comments about language, though I disagree that it really matters. Cheers. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK are the easy ways to find out the details :-) ES&L 11:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Mr Wiki Pro

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.

---

• Mr Wiki Pro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mr Wiki Pro originally seemed to come across as a user you was seeking an opportunity to reform and contribute constructively. Since then it has been increasingly obvious that Mr Wiki Pro is uninterested in this and is instead seeking attention through the creation of sockpuppets (see here and here) to disrupt the project. Given that Mr Wiki Pro's original purpose was to request an unblock I believe a clear signal from the community that this behaviour will not be tolerated and will reduce any chance of an unblock. So I ask the community to ban Mr Wiki Pro. Given the number of sockpuppets being created to disrupt I haven't notified the user. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say he is banned:

  "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned."

  — Wikipedia:Ban#Appeals_and_discussions

-- John Reaves 02:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between individual admins telling a user that they won't unblock them and the community telling a user they are disruptive and are blatantly acting against policy, and most importantly that they are not permitted to contribute to the project until the community decides they can be trusted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Right. The differences between indefinitely blocked and community banned matter in true abuse cases. The de facto banning has not held up as justifying inclusion on the "banned by the community" banned user lists or blanket reverts of contributions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

Mr Wiki Pro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely by the Wikipedia Community.

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as pointless and unconstructive. Per John Reaves, above, this user is already banned and it is magical thinking to suppose that anything said or done here is going to change his behavior. This is a WP:DEADHORSE. Now let's all go build an encyclopedia, shall we? Roccodrift (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as suggester. Mr Wiki Pro has said that individual admins declining unblock requests doesn't mean anything because there is always another one. If the community takes action and shows him that this behaviour is unacceptable then he might give up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support banning as he is recalcitrant in continuing to sock and the community cannot trust him.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't want to take the standard offer. Wants to be here, but won't fit in. He says he's active on Commons and WikiSpecies, by the way. All I can see is userpage creation on Commons, and no contribs on WS. Not being an admin at either, I can't say what deleted contribs there are - and haven't checked the socks to see if they're active there. Might be interesting if anyone can be bothered; perhaps someone here who also works there might find it worthwhile. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - There is, and always will be, a distinction between being "de facto banned" and actually being banned by the community. While the latter represents the collective will of the community, the former is only as good as the willingness of every single admin on en.wiki not to unblock. While I have, in general, great respect for our admins, I also know that if you get 3 of them together there are liable to be 5 opinions among them, so I'd rather not rely on all 1600 of them agreeing not to unblock someone. The community ban, although it certainly doesn't technically prevent a "rogue" admin from unblocking, acts as a deterrent and gives the block more weight. Given this, I would think that we would stop seeing comments like the one from Roccodrift above, poo-pooing a community ban as being "pointless and unconstructive". It's not. An editor who is simply blocked merely needs to convince one admin to unblock them, while one who is community ban needs the community to agree to allow them to edit again, a much heavier burden to overcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sometimes if an editor is defacto banned, it is indeed better to just let it be, particularly if it's working well. Other times, when for example it appears the defacto ban isn't working, for example if some editors reject the existance of a defacto ban or if it's possible the banned editor would be more willing to accept it they are community banned, then it's better to inact a communiy ban of the editor. I don't know which case this falls in to, having only looked in to it enough to gather a community ban was justified, because it doesn't matter which one was the best course of action one the issue was raised. While it's silly to waste time with a community ban when just letting the defacto ban work would do, it's even sillier to waste time worrying about whether it is really necessary to community ban an editor or just let the defacto ban play out once the discussion of a community ban has started. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Beyond My Ken. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 21 December 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.

DYK request

Can an administrator somewhat familiar to DYK process this request? Ideally it could be replaced with a hook from one of the prep areas. Thanks, Gilderien Chat|Contributions 19:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Victuallers.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandal reconciliation template with a personal touch

Well, I was wondering that the warning templates are pretty rough. I prepared a rough draft of a template in my userspace and moved it to Template:Vandal-rc. It is to be used as in {{subst:Vandal-rc}} ~~~~. Any comments on this? I mean, adding it to Twinkle and other vandalism removal tools may be beneficial as many may just flip back their decision to vandalize. Criticism as well as suggestions are most welcome. Ethically ^(Yours) 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You may want to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. All talk page warning templates were carefully crafted over time by several users. Deviation from the usual templates is discouraged. Not to rain on your parade, but I see your good faith attempt soon being deleted. :( Rgrds. --64.85.216.158 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the draft is condescending and patronising. I would also say that the existing warning templates aren't tough enough and that we certainly don't need 4 of them. (all IMO, of course). Leaky Caldron 18:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would never say "Let me share the truth with you", tell an editor how the entire Wikipedia community regards their edit or venture such patronising advice, or then invite the recipient to visit my talk page to tell me what they now thought of me, even though I might learn some new words. If Twinkle imposed such phrasing on me then I would stop using Twinkle to warn vandals. NebY (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I don't believe the warning you've created will have a net-positive effect, in part because of the reasons summarized in above posts. I may be willing to offer editorial advice if you're serious about this, but I think it might be better to start with the standard warnings we have and modify them to make them kinder and gentler. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've given the template a substantial copyedit to smooth out the prose. I think there might be something to the kernel of an idea of "Let's talk to new users and try to explain to them why vandalism doesn't help and editing can be fun", but I don't really think this template is going to do the job. Ethically Yours, you may want to start a discussion on the WP:Village Pump about creating a template or set of templates that adopts this mindset - that way people can help you shape what it says - but I don't think this version is adoptable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you think the process of getting the template officially adopted would be too much of a headache, there is nothing to stop you from using it yourself. You can keep it on a subpage of your user page and set up Twinkle so that it appears on your Twinkle menu, and then it will work just like the other Twinkle warnings do. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to cast another note of dissent here, but having taken another look, this really is so obsequiously fawning it is actually dishonest and we should have no part of it. I have added my personal thoughts in bold.

Hello Vandal-rc! The Wikipedia community considers your recent edits to be vandalism. [but you already know that] Let me tell you a little bit more about Wikipedia so you understand why your edit was undone. Wikipedia is built by people like you and me [actually, it is built by people like me and harmed by people like you], for the betterment [??] of the people all over the world. Wikipedia's goal is to make information freely accessible. I understand that it can be a lot of fun to edit Wikipedia pages to include nonsense or silly things,[I, for one, have never understand the fun in vandalising public works but maybe I just see things differently to you] but before you do it again, wait a second and think: what if you could share your knowledge - true knowledge - with the rest of the world? [we don't share personal knowledge, we carefully aggregate other people's knowledge and I doubt whether your knowledge could actually cover the size of a pinhead] By taking a moment to create an account [as an aside, I understand that it can take ages to create an account] and contribute positively, you can not only make the encyclopedia a better one, but drastically improve your knowledge, too. [a highly questionable concept in your case] A positive contributor is appreciated by the community [but not always universally so and you can be blocked for speaking you mind or criticising others] and we're always in need of someone like that. We don't like to see people be blocked for being vandals,[actually some of us really do like to see vandals such as you blocked, preferably indefinitely. Indeed, if it were possible I would like to zombify your computer or render it unbootable] so perhaps you can think on this [if you can manage to do that] and maybe even create an account [duplication] to edit constructively. If you need any help whatsoever, feel free to approach me on my talk page. [please understand, the template requires me to say this but in truth, I really hope you don't, you vandalising troll] Thank you,. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC) [Happy Christmas, Scrooge's little helper]

In principle it's not a bad idea, as most of the template are far too big and unwieldy, which contributes to the increasing trend of driving away new editors. These templates are way too big - just say what you need to say. For things I say a lot to new accounts, I keep a couple one/two sentence templates User:WilyD/whydeleted - anything more than that isn't informative, it's serves only to discourage new editors from joining the project. But if you're using twinkle, there's probably no hope for you to welcome potential new editors into the project successfully anyhow. WilyD 14:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed a general lack of interest in notifying vandals (and I'm talking vandals, not misguided new editors or people trying out the editing interface) that their actions have been noted and reverted. In most cases, a level 1 or level 2 warning is enough to serve notice that Wikipedia editors are paying attention to one's edits, and that vandals can't get away with much. This is often startling enough that the vandalism stops. If it continues after warnings, we're dealing with someone who will probably need to be blocked. A more diligent effort at notifying people in the first place that their edits are being scrutinized is a key to reducing vandalism. I can't tell you how many times I've seen persistent vandals who never get warned at all. Our existing templates do a pretty good job, especially since the level 2 warnings were toughened and given an orange icon. If we want to be kind and un-bitey, the level 1 warning is pretty good as it is, and is suitable for use where you can't tell if the edits are experimentation or a warm-up to vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

On the occasions that I encounter a vandal who has some sign of intelligence and clue (not the same thing...), I'll put a personalised message on their talk page. If it's really a minor vandalism, I'll use Level 1 - but I rarely use any of the Level 1s as they're a bit wishy-washy. (I've got to keep getting the panto allusions in - haven't scripted one this year...) I like to be personal if there's a hope. Look like a bot, and they won't respect you. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wikiupedia is built by people like you and me.. I understand it can be a lot of fun... We don't like to see... The list of euphemisms and condescending statements go on and on. What is this, Dr. Phil? KonveyorBelt 23:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've been working on some lovey-dovey templates of my own, custom-designed especially for spammers, vandals, and other visigoths. My expectation is not that they will change. As was noted by acroterion, most visigoths are just pen-testing, to see if anybody is paying attention. When they get a knock-that-off orange bar of doom a few minutes later, most of them do. But what about the persistent visigoths who are here for LULZ, or the spammers who are here for fa$t ea$y ca$h from their illicit actions? What drives them, what motivates them? Do they really get deterred by level-five-thousand warnings of Ultimate Stern-ness? Naaaahhh. What about personal notes? Nope, not really. What about gooey with syrup, lovey dovey, doctor phil on the steroids-of-loving-kindness-pop-psychology?

  Actually... actually, I have a hunch that might be the most annoying to a visigoth. Imagine attila the hun, or conan the barbarian ("what is best in life? to crush your enemies, see them flee before you, and hear the lamentations of their children"). What angers them, disgusts them? Stern talking-to? Or gag-me-with-a-spoon luuuuvvvvv? I'm thinking it might counter-intuitively be the latter. We should not make decisions about template-language based on our feelings, and our reactions... we should do A/B testing, against *actual* visigoths, and see what sort of language gets the best results. If we use nice lovey-dovey language, that tends to help soften the false-poz, too. I'd really prefer funny-goofy messages for that purpose, actually... and goofy gets tiring after the hundredth time, so maybe *that* will turn out to be the key to de-motivating the LULZ-seekers. In any case, my sincere congratulations to Ethically Yours for really really assuming good faith. I'm not too hopeful that visigoths can be turned from the dark side of the force... but maybe we can lovey-dovey them into getting so sick of it they go away? Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that A/B testing would be a good idea.

In an unrelated recent discussion, one of the WMF's lawyers said that their cease-and-desist letters tend to be very pleasant and polite, and that the results appear to be the same as if they sent out nasty ones. I wouldn't be surprised if the results were the same here.

And if the results are the same, then I think we should go with the pleasant version. Those messages are sometimes handed out by inexperienced editors who can't quite figure out what "vandalism" is. I had a long chat with someone last month who told me that he thought it totally appropriate for him to formally warn a new editor for "unintentionally" (his word) vandalizing an article, i.e., not knowing how to add a proper ==Level 2== section heading. This kid's invincible belief that "editing after a revert" (actual edit summary) was automatically "vandalism" may have cost us a subject-matter expert. (Just ignore the idiocy of saying that no article may ever be edited after someone has reverted an edit.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Justine Sacco

Just Google the name. Or go to Twitter & look for #HasJustineLandedYet. Need I say more?

Someone want to block creation of any article about this woman for a week or more? -- llywrch (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hate to ask, because yeah, I get it, but: Why would we? She is now--Heaven help us--notable. GJC 05:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Because she fails Being notable solely for one event. SirFozzie (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. If she is truly notable now, then she'll still be notable in a week or two for reasons other than performing the most spectacular career suicide yet on the Internet. -- llywrch (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest disclosure

Hello everyone. In light of some concerns that have been brought to my attention about some WP:COI editing I have done, I wanted to solicit some advice regarding some articles I've written or edited with which I have a personal relationship.

The first article is Duck Attack!, about a video game I wrote in 2009. I wrote the Wikipedia article myself in 2010, which, it's safe to say, is against current best practices. I was a relatively new editor at the time (about 100 edits) but I have been regularly maintaining and updating the article with new sources since then.

In accordance with the current best practices, I have tagged the article's talk page with the {{connected contributor}} template, and have updated my userpage to indicate that I am the author of that game.

Could any interested editors please take a look at that article, and vet it for any signs of overly promotional language, puffery, or POV-pushing on my part? I have tried to keep the content neutral and close to what the reliable sources say about it, but of course I am not the best judge of my own neutrality. Please take a look at the sources and help make sure I am not quoting them in an unfair or biased way. If you can add to the article additional or better reliable sources, please, by all means do so, whether they review the game positively or negatively. It is important to me that the article is an accurate reflection of what the reliable sources say, good or bad.

Please also check the "what links here" for the article to make that any references to the game from other articles are appropriate to those pages. Most of the articles linking to it are as a result of its presence in Template:Homebrew, which other homebrew articles include as a NavBox.

The second article is Digimarc, a company I worked for from 2001–2008. I made these three edits to the article, and this edit to the article of the company's CEO, after I left the company. The company did not solicit me to make these edits or (as far as I know) know I had done so; I just happened to be reading the article and noticed the wikilinks weren't pointing to the right place. Given the minor nature of the edits and the fact that it's been years since I worked there, I did not add a {{connected contributor}} to that talk page, but I will be happy to do so if other editors feel it would be appropriate.

I will post a link to this discussion on the COI noticeboard so that the editors who watch that board can comment here as well. 28bytes (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm confused; who started this thread? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The person who signed it! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

28bytes did. AGK [•] 10:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Tell us, 28bytes — did someone really complain about the three Digimarc edits that you made? No comment about anything else (I've not checked any other links or diffs or whatever else), but as far as these three, you...just added and fixed links. If the other edits are comparable and you're still getting complaints, someone needs to be pointed to WP:BURO and told to stop complaining. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Following the recent ArbCom elections, some folks have been fairly... thorough in their analysis of the incoming arbitrators' editing histories, so I figured that addressing their concerns directly, on this noticeboard, would be the best way to handle it. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked over the Duck Attack! page earlier, and there's certainly no POV or OR issues. Presumably no actual ducks were harmed in the creation of the game, so no need for a "controversies" section. Same goes for his edits to Digimarc, nothing fluffy or inappropriate. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I also checked over Duck Attack!, and found nothing untoward. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

To 28bytes (talk) : I see you have started many articles; are there any of the other of these articles where you could possibly have a COI? Huldra (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've interviewed some interesting people and used the interviews as a reliable source to create or expand the articles for them, for example musician Carl Jah (and an album of his) and science writer Theodore Gray. I think it's OK to do that, per WP:SELFCITE, but I'll obviously let others judge that. I also created Carla Meninsky and later interviewed her on my website, and added a reference to that interview to the article of a game she created and discussed in the interview, Warlords (1980 video game). Another editor later expanded the Meninsky article with additional content from that interview. Racing the Beam has a link to an interview I did to reference one of the statements. I think those are all kosher, but two articles that I created 3 years ago about college newspapers I volunteered for in the 1990s do need COI tags, since I'm discussed in the article rather than just used as a reference. I'll add those tags shortly. They are The Independent Collegian and Spectrum (newspaper). I think that's everything that could be either a clear COI or a grey area, but I will take another look through my edits to see if I missed anything. 28bytes (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. I have placed a {{coi}} on Digimarc, but not because of you: see Talk:Digimarc#COI. For the rest, I´ll look at it. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) having looked at the articles in question, I find no undue POV-pushing or COI violations. Go out and edit 2 other articles that have a COI tag and edit them so that the COI tag can be removed to put forth a demonstration of good will. Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Minor good faith well-intentioned COI editing is getting too much attention by editors without real things to do around this project who would like to make names for themselves. Don't concern yourself with their dribble, 28bytes, like I did. They made a big case out of my editing with little or no attention from others, but when I asked a more general audience, it turned out to not be as big of a concern as these few time-wasters made it out to be. They can hold an RFC/U on you if they have a problem with it. And as Jayen466 notes below, they can also open one on Jimmy and Sue at the same time. COI disclosure for the time-wasting whiners who should concern themselves more with viewpoint-advocacy and copyright violations: I've editing with a COI before.--v/r - TP 22:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

More general discussion not directly related to 28bytes request for folks to review his content

One problem with the edits is that they violate Jimmy Wales' "Bright Line Rule". Or, maybe the problem is Jimmy Wales' "Bright Line Rule". - 72.238.62.174 (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The number of people who violate Jimmy Wales' "Bright Line Rule" in their first edits to Wikipedia is legion. They include Sue Gardner, FFS, who has spoken about how she used to edit articles related to CBC before she became the WMF executive director, and Wales himself. And really, Wikipedia wants it that way, because the ability to violate the "Bright Line Rule" granted by anonymity and the "Anyone can edit" dictum is the bait Wikipedia puts out there to draw people in. Isn't it time Wikipedia and Wales gave up their double-think around this issue? It's undignified. Andreas JN466 15:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Undignified would be doing what one does, just because that's the way it has been done. It's much more dignified to engage in reflection and critical thinking about past and present practice. Sure the barriers of entry are low, and those unused to thinking about COI in written work may not think about COI. Especially, people who think about the merits and demerits of COI writing should include those who have innocently or not done it. Because writing with COI is a responsibility-to-the-reader issue, efforts to educate editors about such a mature responsibility, and address it, should be welcome. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any sincere effort to educate the public, i.e. those who might become editors, about refraining from COI edits. It's all, "Just click edit! It's so easy!" What I do see is knee-jerk responses to bad press, as in the case of Wiki-PR. The Foundation did nothing about that until the Daily Dot and then others wrote about it, even though the investigation was months old by then, and a checkuser and bureaucrat had resigned over it. And what they do only ever addresses PR agents, because, ironically, it's a PR issue for Wikipedia. I don't see any Foundation action to discourage paid or unpaid activists, and that is because the Foundation knows that if they told activists not to edit here and meant it, half the people would disappear. The Wikipedia model is not about getting disinterested people to write about stuff, because they wouldn't do it for free. It's about leveraging self-interest, in the hope that the messy clash of conflicting interests in the Wikipedia melting pot will result in something reasonable at the end of the day. Andreas JN466 17:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the more innocent first step leads to going off the cliff. In that situation, it makes sense to retrace the steps and examine ways of avoiding it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Need an admin to make some requested moves to blacklisted titles

Hi,

I just made a non-admin closure of the move request at Talk:ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36. It doesn't look controversial, as it has been open for two weeks with no oppose votes and the proposed titles seem accurate. However, when I tried to carry out the move it couldn't take place because the titles are on the blacklist. Please could an admin therefore complete the three moves, or else let me know why they can't be moved to the requested locations? (I don't really understand why they are blacklisted anyway). The moves are:

• ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36 → ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 36
• ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 → ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22
• ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 → ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34

Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Nyttend--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Nyttend:, and also for clearing up the reason for the blacklist at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Spaces causing problems.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

24.207.107.93 not working with feedback

24.207.107.93 appears to have aggressive reaction to collaboration: please take a quick look at the talk page history. Upon IRC complaint from a contributor who was a victim of aggressive reaction to a welcome template, I had approached 24.207.107.93 with a legitimate question about his edits.

That was also rejected and the reaction was profanity. Such behaviour does not appear appropriate for an environment where ability to work with feedback on talk pages plays a key role. Gryllida (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Hold off here, I may have provided a wrong username. I'm re-reading the histories. Gryllida (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This was at the same time as 76.250.44.96 placed a warning template on 24.207.107.93's talk page, asking to stop harassment, and got harassed on his own talk page in reply. Such behaviour does not appear appropriate for an environment where ability to work with feedback on talk pages plays a key role. Gryllida (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, so I had mentioned the user the purpose of talk pages about 5 times during our discussion and managed to only get a «talk to someone else», without cursing, in return. I will keep this section updated if the contributor keeps being aggressive in the future. Gryllida (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

They may remove warnings from their own talk page, but if the problematic behavior in the articles and talk pages of other users continues please report them at WP:ANI or one of the specialized noticeboards.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Another thing is that we may mention Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Maybe he has difficulty socially interacting with others, but if that is the case it's possible the community cannot accommodate that, and may have to block him. Both Gryllida and I are aware that a user may remove talk page messages from his/her page, but the entire "don't post on my talk page, fuck off" attitude is highly inappropriate for a collaborative encyclopedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is highly inappropriate, and my forecast is indeed that we will need to block them, however, I am very hesitant (a) to block them just for posting trash on their talk page as response to warnings; (b) to post further warnings at their talk page since this can only escalate the situation. They have been warned very thoroughly, let us wait now. If they continue to misbehave in the article namespace or on the talk pages of other users we can indeed block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Btw it looks like they have not been made aware of this discussion. I will tell them now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

He was made aware here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.207.107.93&diff=587195601&oldid=587193285 - The user in question removed the notice from his user talk page WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I note that {{welcome}} was used instead of {{welcome-anon}} or {{welcome-t-anon}}. Could that have helped?--Auric talk 13:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about that. I didn't know "welcome-anon" and "welcome-t-anon" existed. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that a different template would make a difference for this anonymous user, does not seem to respond in a good faith manner, and refuses to use some common decency in their interactions with other users. Just my observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. There are mitigating circumstances here. First edit by 24 was in response to 2500-byte deletion of a subsection in an article about Houston rap musician Chamillionaire. The deletion itself was sparked by a reddit interview of former arb Wizardman, in which one of the commenters pointed to the Chamillionaire article as an example of bad stuff on wikipedia. I'm not sure whether 24 knew about the reddit thread, or just happened to see the 2500 bytes disappear, but this was 24's edit-summary of their revert of Wizardman's deletion:

17:26, 21 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+2,503)‎ . . Chamillionaire ‎ (rv. you're powertripping. if you want to change it, fix it. people put a lot of work into this. show some respect.)

Agree that WP:NICE isn't made of rubber, of course... but if your first edit to wikipedia is trying to keep something from being deleted, and then you are locked out of the page with WP:FLAGGED and zero discussion on the talkpage, it's hardly a good way to start. WP:IMAGINE applies methinks. Rather than a discussion about how horrid 24 is being, I suggest just giving them some space, if they aren't attacking anybody. Being sociable on talkpages is 'more collaborative' but plenty of folks just want to concentrate on content, and believe WP:NOTFACEBOOK is the unwritten sixth pillar.  :-)   Anyhoo, don't think anybody here in this thread is doing anything improper, and I also don't think Wizardman or the other folks over at Chamillionaire did anything wrong (there was copyvio as well as youtube-cites apparently... so it had to go and that right quickly). Point is, just wanted to make sure the folks here know why 24 might be extra unhappy this weekend. They seem adept with edit-summaries as a means of communication, so as long as their behavior chills out with time, they might end up a constructive contributor. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the posts on WhisperToMe's talk page? That's not very "sociable". "Why" never gives someone a reason to "speak" like that.

If the user empties his talk page repeatedly checking its history is a good idea. (And it was also mentioned that his reactions appear on other contributors' talk pages as well, so (a) from Ymblanter's summary is not accurate.) Thanks to everyone for the detailed insight nevertheless. I did waste a fair amount of time on this one, by raising it here right at the moment the trouble stopped, for which I apologize. Gryllida (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

BAG Membership request

I have been nominated for BAG membership. Input is invited. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678 2.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute closed

An arbitration case about the behaviour of RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) with regards to the use of the terms 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman', has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.
2. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I" is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history. If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension.
3. RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period.
4. For a period of one year, RoslynSKP is prohibited from adding maintenance tags, such as {{POV}}, to any article or section of an article without first raising her concern on the talkpage and obtaining the agreement of at least one other editor that the tag is appropriate.
5. Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 23:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Team Event link to Team Trophy

Okay, I created the Team Trophy page for the Olympics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Team_trophy

However, as you can see, the team event page doesn't link to it and I cannot change it. Would someone be kind of enough to link this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Team_event&action=edit&redlink=1

to the one above that I have already created? I tried myself, and it says it's for administrators only. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gia Sesshoumaru (talk • contribs) 01:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've redirected "... Team event" to "... Team trophy". Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Indef-blocked IP amnesty

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.

---

You may have seen recent discussions about the number of indef-blocked IPs. Most of these discussions are in favour of unblock, as it were, usually caveated with "apart from the problem ones". To bring clarity to this matter and start some action I make the following proposal:

• Any indefinitely blocked IP address whose block was made over five years ago, may be immediately unblocked.

I am bringing this to the attention of admins as despite having rough consensus from the community it will involve blindly reversing several admins' decisions. It also takes admins to make unblocks. The oldest blocks can be found around here and the newest blocks are around here. Any admin who supports this proposal must make at least thirty unblocks. It's a really simple couple of clicks (x30). Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many of those oldest ones are marked as open-proxy or even as a named proxy service (rather than just some guy running some open port or possibly even hacked by third-party). That sort of thing is possibly easy to (re)test, and if it still is an open proxy, why they heck would we want to unblock it? Your proposal completely ignores the "apart from the problem ones" idea that you mentioned as being a popular idea in the consensus-building. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  These things are not easy to check. There are few people, and it takes time and organisation. Statistically speaking, reports indicate most of these IPs should be unblocked (dynamic, etc). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  "We'll assume that what an admin thoughtfully did at one time based on evidence is no longer correct because we're too lazy to look for evidence now" is not gonna fly. If you had written a proposal that was aimed at the actual more limited scope of non-proxy items (again, that's what the consensus seems to have been) (and others, good point about CUBL, Berean Hunter), you might have more of a chance. DMacks (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  No disrespect to them or their blocks, but what's a checkuser going to tell you about a hardblocked IP after five years? Open proxies can and probably should be reblocked to current policy standards. There are several ways to get through this list. This is just a moderate version of one end of the spectrum of views, but probably the most practical. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, a reminder that no admin may undo a checkuser-imposed block without running the gamut of desysopping (see WP:CUBL) and second, many of the IP's may be TOR nodes or other open proxys. A blanket unblocking would be daft.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject on open proxies notified.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I often speak for WP:OP, but I don't here and this proposal doesn't stem from there. My interest is that the alternative, basically, is listing all 20k+ of them there. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as per a completely crazy idea. Some IPs are long-standing, still-active open-proxy IPs. Some were checkuser-imposed blocks that would need investigating to some degree. I would happily support a compulsory review of all of these IPs, but to blanket unblock them may be tantamount to Wiki-suicide... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I think your proposal is well intentioned but dangerously broad. If they are to be unblocked let us check them first and then open them up. JodyB _talk 11:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose any proposal for lifting of blocks without review of the reason the IP were blocked in the first place and whether the reason still applies. -- KTC (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be interested to know how many indeffed IPs there are for a start. And also to know if there is any sort of 'progress check' gets made to see if they are still part of the Axis of Evil. Do they get checked again only when someone using them puts in a request, and if that's the case, is that sufficient so that no other action needs to be taken? Peridon (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Such a broad decision is inappropriate because it can't take into account the circumstances of any of them. Bring up any of them individually? I'd be willing to consider the requests on their individual merits. By the way, remember that community consensus trumps everything except Foundation policy and real-life things such as applicable laws; Arbcom do not have the authority to tell the community that we may not decide to unblock someone. The point is that individual admins may not undo a checkuser block by themselves. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose What evidence is there to support the idea that unblocking hundreds of open proxies and TOR nodes would help the encyclopedia? Mindless unblocking can occur after MediaWiki includes tools to detect and respond to abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose a silly idea that, at best, would require a lot of volunteer time, effort, and scrutiny with no clear benefit to the encyclopedia. At worst, it would be a total catastrophe, the wiki equivalent of letting all the prisoners go at once just to see what happens. While the actuality of it would probably be somewhere in the middle, there's still no benefit to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 21 December 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.

What is it with all this stifling discussion with an archive box. The discussion about what to do with these IPs will continue at WT:OP. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedia anyone can edit. LOL - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

robots.txt

Can an admin add an entry for /wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F to the robots.txt per village pump discussion? NE Ent 19:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Admins don't have access to that (a request could be filed at bugzilla), and I'm not sure it's good to add a whole bunch of extra character-encoding combinations when we can use other methods like {{NOINDEX}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually they do, give me a minute and Ill dig up the MediaWiki message. Werieth (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Easier than I expected to find: MediaWiki:Robots.txt Werieth (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know it copied some of the content from wiki pages at different languages. Now I see https://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt has a comment saying "Edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Robots.txt&action=edit". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea in principle, but in practice we will need to think carefully about what exactly we want to block. If we were to go through MediaWiki:Robots.txt and add an entry ending in %2F for every current entry ending in a slash, we would almost double the size of the list. And after a few minutes searching, I found a link to an AfD discussion from Google that used the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovio_%282nd_nomination%29. If we were to add an entry for both the %2F issue and the ?title= issue, the list would be roughly four times the size it is currently. And there are probably other tricks out there as well. I worry that increasing the size of robots.txt by 4x or more might affect site performance, but I'm not really very knowledgeable about such things. Can anyone who knows MediaWiki and/or robots.txt fill me in? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. There may be other issues from adding to the robots.txt that we may not have foreseen, but it's overall a negligible addition to Wikipedia's overhead, and there's lots of entries on that page already. As well, most of MediaWiki is generated on demand or queried from the database, so that's not important either. The issues we should be focusing really is any future management of robots.txt, which is currently on the decline because of low technically-savvy admin retention as well as editor retention. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Just because a janitor can do his job properly doesn't mean you should make it harder for him though.

Google currently has a 500 kB limit on robots.txt. Everything after the limit is ignored. Other search engines may have other limits. http://wikipedia.org/robots.txt redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt which is shared by all Wikipedia languages. It is currently 28 kB in total. Around 14 kB is specific to the English Wikipedia. Most languages have few or no entries. We have room for expansion but probably shouldn't list a large number of url variations for every entry. Other languages may also want more space in the future. Adding {{NOINDEX}} in addition to using robots.txt has some advantages. It automatically noindexes any url variation. I don't know but there may be search engines which respect one of robots.txt and noindex but not the other. There are probably mirrors which include AfD pages and copy noindex from us (for example when using MediaWiki to display their mirror) but don't copy our robots.txt. There are also live mirrors which appear likely to copy noindex but not robots.txt. A title search indicates we have around 300000 AfD pages. The only template transcluded on a majority is probably {{la}} which was added systematically since around 2006. {{Find sources}} was added more recently. Many AfD pages before 2006 transclude no templates at all. Should we edit {{la}} to test the page name and add {{NOINDEX}} if it's an AfD page? We could also consider a bot to go through pre-2006 pages and add {{NOINDEX}} directly. Doing so for more than 200000 more recent AfD pages using {{la}} may be excessive. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

We have a simple problem. Wikipedia is telling google et. al to index discussions of things we often decided do not belong in the encyclopedia, sometimes for BLP-ish reasons.

It has a simple solution. 28 / 500 = 0.056; overflowing a robots.txt limit will not be an issue anytime soon. robots.txt is a static blob of text that's only served up to webcrawlers that ask for it and requires no server side resources to assemble into client side HTML. All that's need is one of the 848 editors with sysop bits to click the edit tab at MediaWiki:Robots.txt and copy paste the line atop this thread. NE Ent 13:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The suggested line would only block one url pattern for one type of page we don't want indexed. Here are 8 working url's for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ (same for subpages of that):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion%2f
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion%2F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki%2fWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki%2FWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki%2fWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion%2f
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki%2fWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion%2F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki%2FWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion%2f
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki%2FWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion%2F

The above only replaces / with %2f or %2F. I don't know how many of these url patterns are realistic to be used by somebody and found by Google but if we combine them with other changes like replacing ':' by %3A as in your request, or use ?title=, then the number of combinations can grow exponentially. 500 kB can quickly become an issue if we try to catch all url combinations where MediaWiki produces a page. I'm trying to think of better methods and see two main options if MediaWiki continues to present pages at different url's instead of redirecting. 1) Add {{NOINDEX}} to the wiki code so MediaWiki automatically noindexes the page regardless of the url it's displayed at. 2) Modify MediaWiki so it automatically noindexes non-canonical url's, either always or if MediaWiki detects they match a robots.txt entry. MediaWiki already knows some url's are non-canonical and for example adds this code to the html header of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion: <link rel="canonical" href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion" />. This tells search engines that our preferred url for this content is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. But if the canonical url is blocked by robots.txt then Google may think we goofed up, and instead index the non-canonical url which isn't blocked. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/rel-canonical-html-head/ by Matt Cutts says: "Okay, I sometimes get a question about whether Google will always use the url from rel=canonical as the preferred url. The answer is that we take rel=canonical urls as a strong hint, but in some cases we won’t use them: - For example, if we think you’re shooting yourself in the foot by accident (pointing a rel=canonical toward a non-existent/404 page), we’d reserve the right not to use the destination url you specify with rel=canonical." I guess pointing to a page blocked by robots.txt is treated the same way. If MediaWiki was changed so pages with link rel="canonical" were also noindexed automatically then we would avoid the problem, but I don't know what the consequences could be when we want the canonical page to be indexed and have a high page rank. Anyway, such a change would require developers. Admins can only edit MediaWiki:Robots.txt or add {{NOINDEX}} to some high-use templates when they are used on certain pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one line I know is a problem and am asking to get fixed, preferably this week. Is there an admin in the house?NE Ent 02:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but hasn't there already been at least 2 administrators participatring in this discussion including the one you're replying to above. And is the reason why they're perhaps not adding the line because it hasn't really been explained why you believe or 'know' that one is a problem but not the rest? Or if you don't know that but only know one specific line is a problem but have no idea if the rest could be even worse problems, why you feel it's urgent to add it without discussing whether to add the rest which are potentially worse problems, or whether there might be a better solution to adding them? Definitely if I were an admin, I probably wouldn't be adding it based on this discussion so far. You could of course simply file an edit request on the talk page, that seems to have normally worked in simpler cases. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the night,

admins were keeping order throughout the site.

Blocking trolls here, blocking vandals there,

they came to an agreement that was both sound and fair.

One day a year, we all take a break,

and stop doing the things that make admins ache.

Instead we will work on spreading holiday cheer,

and spend time with our loved ones, and those we hold dear.

For tomorrow is Christmas, it's a time of delight,

It's not a time to be around here and fight.

So make the decision that you feel is right,

And to all the editors here, I wish a good night.

Merry Christmas everybody, I hope you like my poem.

Cheers—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 21:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And now you've released it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 :) Good poem, it was really funny.--v/r - TP 22:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Bah Humbug! I suppose this means you will want tomorrow off. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)(Now, go report me for too close paraphrasing, or something.)

The Spirit of Christmas Present will show Alanscottwalker a few parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, that's a serious concern. Just because Dickens is out of copyright doesn't mean it's any the less plagiarism. At least insert a hidden comment. There, I've taken the liberty.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The old-timers will remember the annual talkpage visits from User:Santa on Sleigh. Where is he when we need him? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I vaguely remember the username, but haven't thought of him in years. Nyttend (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I too remember Santa on Sleigh back in the day. It's pretty bad when Santa has retired.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice poem! Ansh666 02:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays everyone! :) œ^™ 21:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

query on "null edit" edit summaries

I have recently noticed some editors using "null edits" for the express purpose of making conversational edit summaries. In the past, I have seen null edits used to add on an edit summary where the prior edit did not have one -- to help people see the reason for the prior edit, but this system of using a null edit for the specific purpose of having an unsearchable (through normal search box) series of posts seems, to me, unusual. Do others feel it is proper or improper for such to occur? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The oops I forgot to type edit summary null edit is long established practice. Edit summary in lieu of talk page should be discouraged. NE Ent 13:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Dummy edit. --John (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect - Do you have any diffs showing examples of conversational edit summaries? -- Jreferee (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

See your talk page. Collect (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Help talk:Dummy edit has a recent discussion on this (last post 10 December 2013). This null edit, noted in that discussion, was made by adding one space, so that }}</ref> became }} </ref>, which allowed for the edit summary without affecting the appearance of the article. Anyone interested can add to the discussion a Help talk:Dummy edit. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Stub Contest, need uninvolved help

Howdy. I am User:Mitchazenia, the other judge of the Stub Contest with User: Casliber. We are in need of some people who can check the entries of Snowmanradio, who has over 6,000 entries and Casliber and I are only human and have 39 other contestants to score for the day. If some people would be interested, please message here and on my talk page (especially the latter so I know). It would do us a lot of good if some people can make sure all of them are legit. We are making changes for the next Stub Contest so people aren't interested in doing 6000+ entries. However, the users have to be uninvolved. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 04:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I should add, that the job would be to check the diffs to make sure that a) they were redirects mismarked as stubs and rightly changed to redirect, or b) making sure that the mismarked stubs are actually start or higher quality. When choosing that, you'd mark it on one of the three sub-pages with Template:Aye. It's a pretty easy job, we just need help doing it due to the size. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 04:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles Money

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.

---

Again in violation of Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions

[2] Edit warring. again

1. [3] Calls an editor a liar
2. [4] Accusations of stalking
3. [5] Accusations of outing

These along with the constant BLP violations, see the ANI thread here.

Request a TBAN from all political party and libertarian articles, broadly construed. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

None of these diffs involve Austrian economics. All are matters that are being handled or have been handled elsewhere, so there's no purpose in repeating them here. Please trout Darkness Shines for wasting our time. Oh, as for his motivation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkness_Shines#You_are_not_an_admin. MilesMoney (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the 'accusation of outing', it seems that the allegedly 'outing' edit in question has been redacted: on which basis we have no way of knowing whether the accusation was true or false, and I see nothing wrong with threatening to report someone for outing if it appears to be true... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The accusation of outing was legitimate, but as all the redactions show, it's been dealt with. Darkness Shines is just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks. MilesMoney (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have to ask whether, in connection to the above, it is appropriate for Darkness Shines to refer to fellow contributors as "total cunts", [6] and if not, whether a sanction of some form is appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no WP:OUTING, only accusations of outing that do not comport with how our policy defines it. The whole thing was cleaned up, but now Miles wants to use it as a hammer. Roccodrift (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't mislead anyone. There was actual outing, although the guilty party apologized and said it was unintentional, so we're dropping it. Why DS is bringing it up here is inexplicable. MilesMoney (talk)

I also saw Roccodrift discussing the incident right after it happened. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, he was discussing how he could use the IP against me. Dirty hands here. MilesMoney (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There was outing. I saw it myself. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw it, too, and it didn't fit the definition described at WP:OUTING. People should actually read policies before trotting them out. Roccodrift (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If the edit was suppressed, then it was outing. — goethean 21:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not true. It does not logically follow that it was outing simply because it was REVDELed. Again, look at the policy. Roccodrift (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A prime example of WP:TE On the BLP Scott Rasmussen Miles has edit warred over this content. It comes from here, A Well in New Jersey. This is cherry picking to the extreme, one short paragraph from all that happened in NJ in one week, and not even notable enough to have been picked up by the national press so far as the sources given show. Not the first time Miles has had isseus with BLP sourcing, and high time it was stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's untrue, but it's also unrelated to Austrian Economics. Why are you even doing this? MilesMoney (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is true, and I am doing this as I told you I would, your BLP violations have gone to far. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's untrue. The incident received national coverage from NPR and even got some air time in Toronto, where I heard about it. And it has no connection whatsoever with Austrian Economics!!! MilesMoney (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to OUTING, #4. Please read the comments on my talk page which follow the diff we see above. To summarize, Miles posted a comment on the ANI and the signature was an IP address. I replied to the IP, which appeared to be Miles because of the location. Miles had identified his/her location in early user talk page comments. So mistakes were made. Miles has said where s/he lives and Miles did not use the preview button to make sure the correct signature was posted. I was being clever when I replied to the IP. I did not research anything about Miles personally and the info "outed" was info supplied by Miles. I have been admonished by the bureaucrat who suppressed the IP address. I have admitted by "guilt" and apologized to Miles. I think the OUTING issue is resolved as water over the bridge and under the dam. – S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're a bit off on the details, but you're right that the issue is resolved, so let's just move on. MilesMoney (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Austrian economics/General sanctions are worthless because there are no admins willing to patrol these pages, and so the fighting continues. Someone involved in these disputes should file a request for arbitration. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

All of that may well be true - but given that the edits in question don't seem to be in relation to Austrian economics, I'm not sure how relevant it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 27 December 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.

Something strange

Here's something that I present before you all: the revisions in here, a user-talk page seems to be suppressed. I don't understand why is this done, or maybe am I confused with something else? All the revision timestamps are striked out. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Usually when you see a page with struck-out versions, you're seeing something that has either had revision deletion or suppression used on it. Both of those tools have specific guidelines for their use, which you can read about on their respective policy pages, and you can generally assume that if you see a revdeletion or a suppression, it was for one of those reasons. However, the reason edits are revdeleted/suppressed is so that their content cannot be seen publicly, so exact explanations for what was in a given deleted/suppressed edit will pretty much never be provided onwiki. If you have reason to think the revision delete tool has been used incorrectly, you could try discussing it with the admin in question, preferably privately. If you have reason to think the oversight tool has been used incorrectly, you will need to privately contact WP:AUSC about the matter. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that they've been oversighted (what Fluffernutter calls "suppression"), because as an admin I can see content that's been revdeleted, and I get a button to reverse the revdeletion, but neither of those is true with this page's history. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Unlike the revdeletion log, which is accessible to all, oversight's log doesn't appear in Special:Log at all except to the oversighters themselves, so you won't be able to find who did what through Special:Log. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, Suppression is actually the technical term. "Oversight", while still the name of the user group, is a reference to the older Oversight extension which is no longer used. LFaraone 03:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay; I was just going by Wikipedia:Oversight, which says Oversight on Wikipedia (also known as suppression) is a form of enhanced deletion which... Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The wiki interface for revdeleted content is really bad -- while it looks as if all the edits in a history have been deleted, they haven't. What happens if some content is removed then all the edit history entries between the addition and removal appear struck out to indicate us regular editors can't get a diff of the edit, because the diff would contain the removed content. NE Ent 22:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean you can't see it, or you can't get the URL itself? I got this diff by going to the page in question and clicking the "compare revisions" button. My admin rights with oversighted material should be comparable to your rights with revdeleted material, so you should be able to get the URL and the oldid numbers for the diff and the separate edits. If you didn't know this, don't fault yourself; I've been an admin for several years and just discovered this a couple of months ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No interface to get URLs {Ya'll (admins) can become non-admins by logging out if you want to get the peon experience}. NE Ent 03:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the interface is still there — follow my directions and you'll get it; I just now accessed it without problems. The most recent page to have normal revdel was Channel Awesome, which I've never before viewed; I've been able to get diffs for revdeleted edits. Get the diff for some visible edits, and then click the "previous edit" button; that allowed me to get this diff, for example. Going farther back will allow you to get both numbers, e.g. this. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would note that suppression or normal revdeletion, it's not hard to guess why the material was deleted. The edit summary which introduced the deleted material says it's someone's résumé. This is the sort of thing which could easily introduce private details such as birthdates, phone numbers or addresses which people may not realise the implications of leaving here and are often deleted even if added by the person themselves and without them requesting it. Even if it only had educational or employment details, such material may readily be deleted, particularly upon request of the person who's details they are. As others have said, revdeletion (and our changelog) works means that any edit history between when the material was added and when it was removed will be hidden even if they introduced no problematic details themselves. The edit you User:Ethically Yours made was still on the talk page of the first unhidden reversion which also happens to be the most recent revision, so it should be obvious it's not a problem itself. (If your edit was not deleted you can safely assume the edit wasn't a problem regardless of whether the edit history is hidden.) In fact, it's probably fair to say that most often only the first edit or the first few edits are the ones that needed to be hidden in the case where the edit history of a lot of edits are missing. (Occasionally intervening edits may be a problem too.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User name

Could an uninvolved administrator please read through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#BillMoyers and take appropriate action. The thread has now been open 11 days. TFD (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Madmanbot

MadmanBot (talk · contribs) (operated by Madman (talk · contribs)) is doing good and necessary work, however, it seems to have a problem with the spam-blacklist: when it tries to save a page with a link to a site blocked by the spam-blacklist, it keeps trying, resulting in thousands and thousands of log-entries in the spam-blacklist-log (500 edits in 5-6 minute; try to find the beginning and end of this set - it goes on for hours; and there are two sets with other links since). This renders the log utterly useless, it is impossible to find what editors try to add, and whether spammers were trying to add blacklisted links.

I tried to contact Madman about it, but the post got archived with no response (I unarchived). I suggested to change the bot so that, upon hitting the blacklist the first time, it wraps the offending link in nowiki-tags and retries.

I am very slightly tempted to block the bot, though the nuisance is only to the few admins who consult the log, and the work the bot performs is necessary. Are there others who have access or can help solve the problem? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(2 hours and 22 minutes for the reported set, with 500 edits in 6 minutes, that means about 12.000 attempts) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any chance that we could whitelist the bot? Barring that, your nowiki suggestion sounds best. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Beetstra, I'm bad at replying in a timely fashion to messages on my talk page even when I do read them. I did read your first and bounced the bot as soon as I woke up. I have done so again this morning. I thought I had fixed the looping condition in the code I inherited from Coren, but apparently not. I also have the bot monitored with Nagios to see when it gets stuck, but sometimes emails either don't get sent or are received in the wrong order making me think the service is still in OK state. I'll take a look at the code again once I get home today; since it's the holidays I actually have some time for once. Thanks for the report and reminder. Cheers, — madman 14:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Madman, I withdraw the consideration/suggestion to block the bot now I know you are actually working on it. Hope you can resolve the problem soon.

@Nyttend: - no, the spam-blacklist is absolute, there are no workarounds, those links simply can not be added, barring disabling them in any form (nowiki-tags, remove the http:// or plainly breaking the offending part by removing, adding or changing characters). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's harder than you might think to break only the link causing the problem; remember, the entire page's contents are being reasserted and the error includes an excerpt from the spam blacklist and not the article. I think the best behavior if the spam blacklist is hit would be to just give up tagging the page, keeping in mind there's still a record of the violation on SCV, the spam blacklist now, and the contributor's talk page. — madman 15:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What if the bot says "Hm, the blacklist stopped me. I guess I'll tag the page with error, URL blacklisted, check the spam blacklist for PAGENAME" if nowiki doesn't work? Adding this kind of warning-to-admins should permit us to find the URL easily without omitting the tag. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

... Never mind. I'm still sleepy. The URL hitting the blacklist must be the source URL the bot has identified, not anything previously in the article, as your language reminded me, Beetstra. I'll look into how the blacklist works. If it's just a regex applied to the article's contents that might be a problem but if nowiki does work can't we just add it to the tagging templates? That seems cleanest. — madman 15:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

People like the convenience of a working link in such templates (click and you see what it is maybe a copyvio of). So I don't know if blanket-nowiki-tagging the links in the copyvio-templates is a liked solution to the problem. Bot-wise nowiki-ing the link still shows the link (editors then just have to manually copy/paste the link to get to the page, and that in itself may also be an extra suggestion that something is fishy with either of the two documents). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And yes, it is the source-url (the external 'original') that the bot is adding inside the tag which is the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The templates are only used by the bot but I like your point that having to copy and paste links that were in the blacklist draws attention to them specifically. — madman 15:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Template protection

Hello,

There is an RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Template_Vandalism to protect templates inorder to deal with template vandalism. Please participate in the discussion.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Move warring

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.

---

Cowboys Stadium. [sic] is in kind of an awkward location because an irritating amount of move-warring and sockpuppetry. The status quo (set here) has been to default to the AT&T Stadium name. Speedy delete the AT&T Stadium article per IAR, or do I open a proposed move? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the copy-paste move [7] definitely needs to be taken care of somehow. Chris857 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I returned it to the move-requested title and move-protected it for 3 months, since the previous 2-month protection proved insufficient. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:00, 30 December 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.

AN:I archive bot?

Cluebot has not archived any sections of WP:AN/I since the 27th. Some sections date back to the 23rd, just a tad longer than the normal 36 hours, I think. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot in question is operated by Cobi, have you tried asking him (either on his talk page, or on the bot talk page User talk:ClueBot Commons)? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now, thanks for the help. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History

The Committee has resolved by motion that:

In remedy 2 of Argentine History, the following text:

"the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces."

Is replaced by:

"(A) the political, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and (B) any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic, or military events that occurred before December 1983. This restriction applies across all namespaces."

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia AD Service

On the article Hangul there is a weird animated gif present: /media/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Michigan_state_police.gif, that links to the AR-15 page, but it cannot be edited out. There are similar gifs present on other pages, like Park Chung-hee or Kim Jae-gyu. Sztupy (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It was vandalism this morning to Template:Infobox Chinese/Korean, which has now been reverted, but presumably a caching problem, probably needing purging the affected pages. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, Sztupy. It was vandalism, which we've now removed. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've purged a few, but is there an easy way of purging all the other affected pages that link to Template:Infobox Korean name? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, unfortunately. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Would forcelinkupdate through the API work? Or is that for something totally different? My apologies if I don't know what I'm talking about here. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Can editors remove block notices from their talk pages?

I've always thought they could. WP:REMOVED says they can't remove "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction". I didn't think that 'an active sanction' meant a block notice, especially as 'declined unblock notices' seems to imply that they can remove anything else to do with a block, but WP:Sanctions does mention blocks. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Had a recent issue with this, Bishonen agreed that mere block notices can be removed, and on rechecking policy and precedent I agreed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Remarkably poorly worded. Bish pointed out that my and anothers' restorations were wrong, snd I reread policy and agreed. I plead migraine + meds and throw myself on 'zilla's mercy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Try pocket, little user. bishzilla _ROARR!! 01:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC).

I've always thought they could, not so much because of what policy says, but because it isn't that big a deal (especially now that you see a user's block notice when you try to edit their talk page, but even before then), and it can sometimes deescalate a heated situation. Forcing the scarlet letter to remain is not going to help anyone "get their mind right". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As I noted on Doug's talk page, there have been previous discussions on this issue, and not everyone agrees. If I have time, I'll try to dredge them up, but I pesonally take the position that active block notices cannot be removed and enforce that position unless it conflicts with the blocking administrator's views.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost certain there've been discussions here, but I'm having trouble finding them. However, this discussion is pertinent, as is this discussion. BTW, if we could ever agree on this, I do think the language should be changed to be clearer.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever you decide, please make the language explicit. I've always assumed blocks were active sanctions and restored when necessary as I regularly see other editors (both admins and non-admins) do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::If WP:REMOVED is really meant to say block notices can't be removed, it shouldn't say that declined unblock requests can't be removed, it should say no block notices or declined unblock requests should be removed. Just saying declined unblock requests can't be removed isn't enough. But the practical problem is more important. What do we do if a blocked user removes the block notice? If we extend the block, why are we doing that? And if he/she removed the new notice, extend again? All we can do is block talk page access, and that doesn't really seem reasonable. Whatever we decide here needs to be added to the appropriate pages. Dougweller (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. If a user removes a current block notice, I restore it and warn them that if they do it again, their talk page access will be revoked. If they ignore the warning, I revoke.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is also known as "kicking someone while they are down" and is rather pointless and rude. -- John Reaves 22:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, John. The purpose of a talk page is to communicate about Wikipedia-related issues. When a user is currently blocked, the block notice informs the user and the community of the block and the reason for the block. While blocked, the user may request an unblock or discuss the block. Administrators may participate in that discussion. Not just the blocking administrator, but any administrator. I take a dim view of talk pages being used for other purposes, and although blocks are not meant to be punitive, their removal by the blocked user does a disservice to the community. We are not here to mollycoddle users who have been blocked. Restoring current block notices isn't grave dancing, and it isn't a scarlet letter. It's simply a fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Any admin worth their salt is going to check the talk page history and the block log, both of which are not editable by a the blocked user. Restoring notices is disruption and should not be encouraged. -- John Reaves 22:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you read the first discussion link I posted above, you'll see that many respected admins (all of whom are "worth their salt") disagree with you. And many do agree with you. Someone said in a subsequent discussion that there were more votes for not allowing removal than allowing it. I didn't confirm the count, and I know numbers are not necessarily what we go by.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Once the user has read the notice, they are aware they are blocked. Once any other user tries to leave a message for a blocked user, they see the block notice and are aware the user is blocked. So if the purpose is to alert the user and the community that the user is blocked, the block notice doesn't do anything extra, and there is zero "disservice" to the community. It appears your only other reason is to not mollycoddle a blocked user, and enforce your dim view of blocked users doing anything except request an unblock. That approach is very disappointing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be disappointed, Floq. We often disagree on these kinds of issues. However, I'm not the only one who disagrees with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they should be removable; insisting on maintaining the badge o' shame doesn't improve the encyclopedia. NE Ent 22:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Should or should not aside, my understanding has always been that block notices can be removed, but declined unblock requests can not. It's always struck me as being a strange compromise.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, blocked users' talk pages are magnets for frivolous conversation. -- John Reaves 23:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It does indeed seem a strange compromise. While it is still a little harsher than I'd like personally, I think a compromise that would at least make more sense and might get some level of consensus is "you can remove block notices and rejected unblock notices from your talk page if you want to, but if you're requesting an unblock (or a new unblock), you need to put it all back." --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside how I might feel about that substantively, procedurally it is a bit ornate and would be hard to implement, both for the blocked user as well as for others.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all strange. Talk pages' primary purpose is to communicate. That an editor is blocked is communicated by both the user contributions and edit notice, so there's no need for it to remain on page after a user has acknowledged it by reading it. On the other hand, there is no log of unblock requests, so the only way a reviewing admin would have of finding prior discussion would be to work through the diffs, a time consuming operation which would not benefit the 'pedia. NE Ent 23:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And the only reason a reviewing admin would need to find the prior discussion is if there was a new unblock request. Hence my suggestion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) If the blocked editor is somehow trying to mislead people by removing something—e.g. a prior unblock decline or the blocking administrator's explanation when requesting an unblock—then it makes sense to put it back. If the blocked editor is behaving himself or herself and just doesn't want to look at the block templates any more when checking his or her talkpage, let's leave it alone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to another discussion (at the Pump), which, in my view, highlights how much disagreement there is on these issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's disagreement, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus not to remove. I also note that the attempted change to WP:REMOVE to implement a no removal policy was reverted, which to me means that removal is ok. Is this discussion now at the right place or should it be moved to the pump? As this is about basically about what Admins have to do if an editor removes the notice, I'm happy for it to stay here. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I see this as two issues. First, what does the current language mean, and, second, what do we want the policy to be? (BTW, I use the word "policy" intentionally even though the section is imbedded in a guideline. It's another oddity that has been discussed before - somewhere - about the imperative nature of the language.) I don't care that much where this is discussed (again ). I'm more interested in it receiving sufficient attention. It doesn't seem to be grabbing that many people here, at least not at the moment. There are also ancillary questions, but I won't make it even more complicated by going into those at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Transition User:EdwardsBot/Access list to new MassMessage user group

Hi.

There's a new MassMessage user group on the English Wikipedia, following Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Create new user group for m:MassMessage.

Could any passing admin please transition User:EdwardsBot/Access list to the new user group? This entails modifying the user groups for every user listed at User:EdwardsBot/Access list who is not already an administrator. Administrators have the user right to access Special:MassMessage already.

Thanks in advance. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking this on. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

For all Wikipedians and to all admins: Wish you a very happy new year. Hope your upcoming year stays bright! Good luck and enjoy (It's 12 AM, 1st Jan here and crackers are bursting!) Ethically ^(Yours) 18:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well, EY. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} 00:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for disappearance of Mbz1

Please apply WP:BAN and WP:RBI to any further postings by this user.
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. Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Following a recent (and current) discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I am making the following proposal. Mbz1 was an editor who contributed extensively to Wikipedia, but also engaged in behind-the-scenes subversion of Wikipedia processes in order to press her political point of view, dishonest attacks on other editors both privately and publicly, and a variety of other WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. She was also subject to unauthorised access to at least one of her private email accounts, which was the cause of some of this behaviour becoming known to Wikipedia editors, including some of her targets. Mbz1 was ultimately community banned by a discussion at WP:AN. Mbz1 has engaged in block evasion on a continuous basis ever since she was banned, including within the last 24 hours. Far from block evading in order to defend her actions, apologise for her actions, or benefit Wikipedia in any way, she has instead used block evasion in order to insult and harass anyone whom she perceives as aligned with her former political opponents. (One example of many.) Mbz1 is unhappy that her banned Wikipedia account shows up in searches for her real life name. She was not a minor when she created her Wikipedia account, nor when she began using it for battleground behaviour and attacks on other editors. The responsibility for how her actions are perceived, is therefore hers and hers alone. Regardless of that, given the obvious distress that the situation continues to cause her, I propose: The User:Mbz1 account be unblocked, with a neutral edit summary, no link to this or any other discussion, and no mention of the issues involved. Mbz1 agrees they will never edit the English Wikipedia again, under any username, nor encourage or advise others to do so. The Mbz1 username is removed from any lists of bans, ARBPIA restrictions, and similar lists. The Mbz1 username is then "vanished" according to the provisions of WP:RTV as though Mbz1 had exercised their right to vanish while still in good standing. The Mbz1 account is then locked (I don't really see what this achieves, but apparently it's relevant). Support as proposer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Comment I'm generally supportive of any changes which protect editors' privacy, no matter how good their standing is, but could you please clarify whether Mbz1 has agreed to the second proposal here? Nick-D (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Yes she has, if we believe this edit was indeed made by her. (I personally believe that it was.) I have also asked that editor's opinion on this proposal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Question for proposer — when/where was the community ban enacted? I'm trying and failing to find it. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'll look into this shortly, unless eager fingers find it for us first. I believe Mbz1 said that I was the first person to comment on the ban proposal after someone else made it; I'm not sure if that helps to narrow it down or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC) This will lead you there.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC) It's not possible to globally lock the Mbz1 account because there is no such global account. Individual projects cannot lock accounts, only block them. Personally, I have no problem with renaming the account. I do have issues with unblocking it, given that it is not possible to globally lock it. Risker (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC) That may be an obstacle; for some reason the "let me go" demand is tied in with an unblock. I don't see how, since being blocked or unblocked does not change search results. Maybe what's being asked for is a revdel blanking of all the block log entries? I don't really claim to understand the demands :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I oppose any accommodation for this editor. She is likely playing games. The complaint makes no sense. If she stops harassing and socking for a few months we could talk about it. At this time, the answer should be "no". Jehochman Talk 04:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. She brewed her own dose of hemlock. She shouldn't get a free pass from the consequences of her own actions. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose - Such an accommodation has to be earned, and I see nothing indicating that this editor is deserving of the community's charity. When will people understand that we're not a model utopian community or a social services agency or a debating society, we're here to create an encyclopedia, period. When someone is banned, it's because they got in the way of that task in some way, and we owe them absolutely nothing whatsoever, unless they can make a overwhelmingly good case for their being able to help the project again. Absent that, nada. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Support - They're not asking to edit again, they just want to be able to walk away without a stain on their name. This costs us nothing and motivates them to go away. It's win-win. MilesMoney (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Support This is an unusual case, but if the deal is "unblock me so I can feel better, and let me vanish, and I will not edit again", I agree that it is a win-win situation. I saw some of the disruption associated with this user, and a miracle would be needed to support a more traditional "unblock me so I can continue", however there is no reason to oppose this request. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Comment The last time I was discussed on this board I was not allow to say a single word, not even at my own talk. Today I'd like to ask the community to allow my comment below to stay. Demuirge1000 request me to apologize for "harassing" other people. I'd loved to, but before I do I'd like to know what I am apologizing for. I might be guilty of some disruption, I might be guilty of some incivility, but harassment is different, and to the best of my knowledge I have never and nowhere was involved in harassment. I have never was involved in 1.1 Wikihounding 1.2 Threats 1.3 Perceived legal threats 1.4 Posting of personal information 1.5 Private correspondence 1.6 User space harassment If somebody knows otherwise, and could present valid evidences, not just the unsupported accusations, I will most definitely consider an apology. Thanks. Peace and Happy New Year.Mbz1 (talk) 76.126.140.118 (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Community-banned editors are not allowed to edit, so I've struck-through their comment (although I suppose I should have redacted it entirely). Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Reverted the strike. Fine to remove per banning policy; makes more sense to me to leave per iar; it's reasonable to allow Mbz1 to participate in a discussion about her ban / account, and it will spare Mbz1 and Demiurge100 the pointless overhead of m emailing d and d posting the message. NE Ent 12:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I've never understood applications of the "IAR" label like this. I can assure you that using common sense and being reasonable are both rules around here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Neither have I: how can someone label an edit which enables a banned user to consume more time and energy as being per IAR when it does nothing to improve the encyclopedia?—Kww(talk) 02:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Support I encourage Mbz1 that she grab this opportunity to vanish, and assume that if she does, the proposal in its entirety be enacted. →StaniStani  12:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(Changing my encouragement to a support !vote.)StaniStani There is no opportunity. This is a cynical, manipulative request by Mbz1, but I applaud Demiurge1000 for trying to help. She can and should disappear on her own. Stop socking, stop harassing our editors and nobody will speak further of her. There is no logical reason to unblock the account and I will request arbitration if anybody does so. Please don't leave uninformed comments on this thread. Please familiarize yourself with the long history of this matter before opining. Jehochman Talk 13:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'm really hoping you're not calling Demiurge1000 "cynical" and "manipulative," and other contributors to this discussion "uninformed." Such accusations would not be thoughtful or constructive, and might violate WP:NPA. I would like to be reassured that my assumption of good faith is not misplaced. →StaniStani  13:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC) If you read what Jehochman wrote, he's quite obviously not calling Demiurge1000 either cynical nor manipulative. Please don't introduce red-herrings into the discussion ES&L 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I added the bit in italics to make my comment clear. Sorry for introducing confusion. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Support the principle (non-admin) Note: I've never had any involvement in RTV issues. It may be a cynical request but I don't see how we can read her mind even if the lengthy past discussions are invoked. It seems that it is the linking of real-life persona to WP persona that might have been causing much of the latter disruption & while that linking is arguably her own fault, it would be beneficial to the project if we could bring an end to all of the issues, which affect WP as well as her. Given the past extensive interactions, I'd be surprised if those who are familiar with the case would not spot her should she not in fact disappear as per RTV. And if they do not then presumably that would mean that she would be contributing in a positive manner. I see no reason why we should not give it a go. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose I don't believe I have any specific personal argument with Mbz1 ... but we don't unblock just to allow a vanish. There's an interesting challenge here: during an editor's "career" on Wikipedia, they self-identified, and caused a giant kerfluffle. Neither are the community's fault. Just like posting a picture of yourself drunk on Facebook can lead to some employer not wanting to hire you (or indeed wanting to fire you), similar actions on a well-known site like Wikipedia can and will have similar repercussions. That's not the project's fault; it's your own. Even if "vanishing" occurs, the remnants will remain in the archives of the internet forever. This will therefore never help Mbz1 to ever "get over" the problems they personally caused. Mbz1 appears to not be accepting responsibility for their actions, and simply wants them swept under the rug. I'm not sure how that's in THEIR best interest, or even the project's best interest. You want to have a positive online history? You visibly FIX the issues, and have THAT attached to your name instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to hide it. ES&L 14:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC) If Mbz1 shows that she has the self-control to stop socking and stop harassing our volunteers for a good period of time (the standard offer is 6 months, but I'd accept less), then we could allow a courtesy vanishing. Until then, we need to keep the evidence to help control ongoing disruption. If there is any particular page that shows up in the search results and prevents Mbz1 from getting a job (etc), please email me the link and I will fix it very promptly. None of the doings on this site are worth harming a person's livelihood. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Support vanishing. Actually, I enjoyed a lot talking with Mbz1 when she was active. She was one of the most interesting contributors I met in this project. I do not see a reason why she can not "disappear" if she wants, why her talk page can not be deleted if she wants, etc. At the same time, her account can remain blocked. Happy New Year! My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose The User is not entitled to WP:RTV as per current policy .This user is also entitled to only what any other user is similar circumstances is allowed nothing more nothing less.Wikipedia:RTV#What_vanishing_is_not As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Comment Changing the username on this wiki will not make the Google hits go away, because the photos (which link the real name to the username) are almost exclusively on the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC) And Commons does not have RTV policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Though m:Right to vanish can be sometimes applied there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Oh, and she is not blocked on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Clarification I am not asking for RTV. I am asking for a global lock. There are three reasons a global lock with unblocking my account is better than vanishing. 1) It is easy to find who is the owner of the vanished account and it probably will not work on the images I uploaded to Wikipedia. 2. Even 1.5 years after the block I am still getting requests for the images. I would not like to deny people this opportunity to contact me. 3.I will still be blocked from Wikipedia. Global lock is possible without blocking accounts. I know at least two users who were globally locked (one on his own request) with their accounts unblocked.Please let's return to civilized, free world. Please let me to participate in the discussion. I am not disruptive, and I am civil. Thanks. Mbz1 24.4.37.194 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. I am dubious of condition #2, that this person will stay away from Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Agree with Binksternet and Oppose. Even to the casual observer such as myself it is apparent that this person loves drama and attention. I doubt they will stay away. freshacconci talk to me 18:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Support unblocking account while simultaneously locking account globally. This can not be gamed in any fashion placing Wikipedia in peril. I do not support banishing the user to some "neverland". If they believe at some future date they have constructive energy and a proper desire to take up with the building, they should have all avenues of return available, as they would otherwise be.—John Cline (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I shouldn't state with certainty, that which I am not certain of. I am curious if unblocking here, and removing associated autoblocks; unenforced by a global lock could create an exploitable vulnerability? I'll be researching this aspect further before I suggest there is no risk.—John Cline (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC) a) The user does not have a global account, hence we can't lock it -- this can be of course fixed by the user creating said global account b) the English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction to vote on a global lock, and stewards are very, very unlikely to act upon it. One project cannot make global decision, and we generally do not lock accounts even on request from the account holder. Snowolf How can I help? 20:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I know at least one editor who was globally locked by his own request. I do hope that the stewards would consider my personal situation, and help me, and if a global lock isn't possible I promise now and here that if unblocked, I will never again touch Wikipedia sites, and if I break my promise the block could be simply reinstated. I assure you the Wikipedia and the world would survive this drastic measure :-) Please allow my comment to stay. Mbz1. 69.181.41.193 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC) This is the wrong venue to request a global lock. You need to apply at meta:Steward requests/Global#Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding. You will probably have to unify your accounts as a first step. The instructions for that are at meta:Help:Unified login. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Diannaa. I will look into it. Actually I did not chose this venue. I appealed to Jimbo. This venue was chosen against my will by demiurge1000. I assure, everybody, I am not looking for, and I don't need any extra attention. But a global lock by itself will not change my real life situation. My real life situation will change only unblock here, on English Wikipedia. I offered a global lock not because I am afraid I would not be able to keep my promise to stay off Wikipedia sites, but only to reassure Wikipedians that they will be safe from me. I believe a global lock could be dealt with, when and if I am unblocked here, and no matter, if I am globally locked or I am not I will never get even come close to Wikipedia site. I've got more than enough.Mbz1 69.181.41.193 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC) A steward can lock the accounts without them being unblocked first. A steward has the ability unblock the en.wiki account once it is locked (but whether this would happen or not, I do not know). I am very sorry your activities here are causing you distress in real life and wish you luck. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Continually evading a block in order to harass other users does not demonstrate the good faith which deserves a right to vanish. Given that the potentially damaging content is entirely the record of Mbz1's own poor behavior (repeated harassment and agenda-pushing), I might feel differently if this request were accompanied by regret for her past actions and a clean record going back some time, but that's obviously not the case here. Frankly, "I might stop harassing people if you do what I ask" smacks of extortion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Nil Einne's comment brings another potential issue to mind. I have exactly zero faith that Mbz1 is actually planning to leave the project; she continued acting disputatiously for months and months after she was site-banned, which was why the steps of blocking her from editing her own talk page and finally blocking her from using e-mail were taken at all, and the recent IP contribution log shows that even two and a half years after being site-banned, she's still using Wikipedia to pursue grudges against people through open IP editing. It seems like vanishing these edits will make it more difficult to pursue any sanctions in the future, should they become necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Support - There is no honest reason to oppose this, other than the furtherance of old grudges. The user has socked and block-evaded, yes, but lately it was to try to bring about what we're discussing now; the removal/erasure of themselves from the project. Everyone always says "blocks are preventative not punitive!" around here, so maybe it's time to man up and prove that isn't just an empty phrase. This person wants to leave, but does not wish to have uploads & edits made via their real name connected to an ugly "you are blocked" Scarlet Letter. So it's a choice between the status quo of socking and continuing to bring this up every month or so, or of accepting an actual solution to put an end to it. Do the right thing. Tarc (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Comment Frankly, I doubt that Mbz1 is anything but untruthful with her claim that she won't edit again if we allow her to mask her status as a banned user. For that reason especially, I categorically oppose an WP:RTV. Fortunately, she never actually requested this in her original post to Jimbo. The question of removing the local block and replacing with a global lock is more nuanced. Given her user and talk page already lack templates denoting her status as a banned user, the only real purpose is to hide the giant pink background when someone tries to edit her user page. That seems harmless enough, but I can't really support since it seems likely that Mbz1 is still playing games. Resolute 04:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose, per the comments by Someone not using his real name below. If Mbz1's concern is her real name being associated with images at Commons, then the solution to any problem is at Commons. There is no need to encourage her games and playing at being a victim here. Resolute 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Support per Tarc. Andreas JN466 09:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Support. Time to do the right thing. — Scott • talk 10:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Support. People's real lives are far more important than Wikipedia, and if there's a way to help Mbz1 in real life while also enabling a final disappearance from the project, then that's a win-win situation. I'm saddened to see so many people sticking to the "She deserved it" line as if our rules really matter compared to the real world - and if their cynicism turns out to be well-founded, a reblock would be easy. (Oh, and what Tarc said too - I've only just read that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Support The rules don't exactly cover situations like this, so if we can improve the encyclopedia by ignoring them, we do so. In this case, Mbz1 gets what she wants, Wikipedia's community gets what we want, and both parties can part company and get on with our respective pursuits. I see no good reason, beyond petty pedantry, not to accede to this request. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Support per BSZ. To clarify, I understanding the proposal to be we end up with the Mbz1's existing account unblocked and renamed, and new, zero edit blocked doppelganger Mbz1 account, which is not linked to the vanished account, of course. NE Ent 12:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Weak oppose generally I'm supportive of people being allowed to vanish presuming they really do vanish, even if they've had historic problems, when the info is causing real world problems. But I'm reluctant to support it here, not because I'm being petty or a pendant or I want to punish Mbz1 or because she deserves it or anything of that sort. I'm reluctant to support it because I do think allowing people to vanish can cause confusion and also takes the time of bureaucrats etc. This means two things. 1) I have to have some belief the user is really going to vanish because otherwise we will be wasting everyones time. 2) Vanishing is ultimately a privilege and it's fair to deny it when it's completely undeserved. Not because they deserve any harm the lack of vanishing creates or to punish them, but because there's no reason we should put up with the confusion it creates when it's so thoroughly unearned. In this particularly case, the socking is so recent that I have great difficulty believing the editor will really vanish and don't think we should have to deal with the confusion it creates. It's been suggested above that the recent socking was solely intended to achieve this outcome. But I don't see how Special:Contributions/24.6.41.1, which was linked above, relates to that. Now I don't know much about the history here and while I looked briefly, I didn't find much and in any case, it sounds like there's a lot here that will not be public on wikipedia. Mbz1 is welcome to ask arbcom the same question and I will have no problem accepting whatever they decide. Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Comment I should add I see no problem with their block being replaced with a global lock without any RTV being invoked. However considering how unearned it is and that it sounds like there may be a fair degree of technical work (creation of a global account etc), I don't think we should ask for it as a community. We can relay the request making it clear we don't object, or Mbz1 can make a request themselves. I also have no problem unblocking without a global lock with the understanding that any funny business will lead to an immediate reblock. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I think a secondary problem is that people have supported something but each person's idea is slightly different. I still don't understand the purpose of Mbz1's request, or the exact steps that would be taken. Perhaps it would make sense, as a first step, to unblock Mbz1 on condition that she only edit through her named account, and only participate on this page, in this discussion. (Any violation would result in a reblock and denial of any requests.) Taking the temperature of this thread, I don't think anybody is going to object too strongly, so I'm going to do that. Then we can speak with her and determine what she needs that is within our power to grant, and what assurances she can give that no abuse would occur. For instance, a few trusted people should know the identity of the new account to verify that it's not going to be used for mischief. Assuming we come to a point of agreement, she would then be permitted to request vanishing. I certainly don't want Wikipedia activities harming somebody in real life. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Oops, there's no way I or any other administrator can unblock her. The block currently in effect is an ArbCom block based on private info, and she is required to appeal it to ArbCom. "Please appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" Mbz1, please go ahead and do that via email, and point them to this thread so they can see what the community wants. Good luck. Jehochman Talk 12:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I agree there's a lot of confusion over what and why Mbz1 wants. I was initially largely going to what Demiurge1000 said but after reading some of the comments above as well as the initial request on JW's talk page [8], it sounds like the main thing they want is to be unblocked with an edit summary which doesn't indicate that they remain barred or are held at fault (they suggested 'peace'). So I wonder if the RTV bit, while well meaning, is not really expected by Mbz1 and is causing confusion in the discussion as I think it's the main sticking point for those opposed. (Although I don't fault Demiurge1000 in this in any way, particularly since Mbz1 is the one who approached Jimbo rather than simply ask arbcom or ask someone to ask the community.) It sounds like they're not even asking for the block log to be wiped. The global lock as per their statement above and from what I linked to as well, is only intended to assuage those who have concerns about the risk of them being unblocked. As with others, I don't personally see it as necessary since if they do carry out any editing, they'd quickly be reblocked. Similarly if they email others, any complaints would lead to reblocking and if people don't complain, well they could have just socked anyway. As with you and others, I don't quite get all the conditions, like what people are going to check the block log and see the most recent entry but ignore the rest, but I WP:AGF that it's really causing them problems. And I also WP:AGF that Mbz1 is not going to use any unblock as an opportunity to purposely present themselves in real life as an editor retired in good standing. You're right though that any unblock will have to come from arbcom. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC) My take is that Mbz1 has some nice photos out there uploaded with her real name attached, and people find them and ask her if they can use them - but at the same time, they see they're associated with a blocked Wikipedia account and that looks bad on her in real life. The aim is, as I understand it, to dissociate those photos from an obvious connection with a blocked account. The specific details of how to do it don't really bother me - but if we can do it, it will cause us no harm and will do a real person some good on real life. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Why do user spontaneously come from Commons to Wikipedia? The Mbz1 userpage and talkpage are deleted. How is anybody getting to them? This doesn't make sense (yet). Is Mbz1 blocked on Commons? If so, we can't help that here. Jehochman Talk 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC) No, she is not currently blocked on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC) She probably means not Commons but external sites where a real name is connected to the English Wikipedia account. If you type her real name + Mbz1 in Google, there are plenty of those.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Support renaming the account to something meaningless and deleting userpages. Don't care about whether the account is blocked or not, since if a user ever tries to edit with a vanished account, it will be summarily blocked or unvanished, as the case may be. Even if it is left blocked, the block will be on "User:Ggkhdsfkghskfjgshjf" rather than on an identifiable account. Support enabling Mbz1's talk page access so she can comment on this proposal rather than using IP socks, which might be impersonators. Support removing the "editing restrictions" from the public view if the account is renamed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I just deleted the Mbz1 user page, talk page, and three subpages that NE Ent had found. The user wanted to vanish, so this step goes a long way toward accomplishing that goal. No ordinary person, nor any search engine, is going to turn up Mbz1 on Wikipedia after a few days. That should resolve the problem. I do not see how any ordinary person is going to come across Mbz1's block log on Wikipedia. As I said already, anybody finding her images on Commons will go to her Commons userpages where she can still do whatever she wants, and where we have no authority in any case. What else needs to be done to resolve her real world issue? Jehochman Talk 13:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Jehochman, Deleting those pages leaves only the block log visible. The previous state of affairs - a "retired" banner - is preferable, which is why I did that. Months ago - and protected it. As for the above, I'd support a rename here, but I don't see that an unblock is useful. WormTT(talk) 14:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Depends on context; from an internal standpoint, WTT is correct; from an external (google) standpoint, deleted pages serve up <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />, so they'll fade from search results. The easiest solution is to unblock so the "this user is blocked mesage" doesn't appear on deleted subpages and place {{retired}} and __NOINDEX__ the top level user and user talk pages, so editors following links from historical on-wiki content are notified the user is no longer active. The possible downside is, of course, Mbz1 will lack the self control to refrain from posting using the account, but that's a reasonable risk to take as the cost to remedy (reblock) is nearly trivial.NE Ent 14:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Except that every single on-wiki link will now point to that, and there are more than a few. I agree with the noindex, possibly a blank page - but not no page at all. WormTT(talk) 14:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC) One of Ent and Worm are confused: I'm suggesting all but User:Mbz1 and User_talk:Mbz1 be deleted, and those two pages be noindex / retired. If an onwiki link points to something like User_talk:NE Ent/ain't no such page, that seems harmless enough. NE Ent 14:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC) If someone's confused it's likely to be me. I spend most of my life in a state of confusion. At any rate, I'm happy with that solution. WormTT(talk) 14:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)Deletion of pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Mbz1, Special:PrefixIndex/User_talk:Mbz1. (I didn't find them in the google search results earlier because they don't appear until the later pages.) NE Ent 14:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC) WTT, please go ahead and recreate the two pages and tag them as you see fit. They should be fully protected; nobody needs to edit them. NE Ent, let's let another admin finish deleting the subpages so they drop out of Google. Separately, Mbz1 can appeal to ArbCom for an unblock or name change. I don't think any bureaucrat will agree to do the name change for blocked/banned user when there's an ArbCom block in place. To move that forward ArbCom should give a nod. Maybe somebody could go request a motion that Mbz1 be renamed, etc. Jehochman Talk 14:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Created the user and user_talk pages per discussion above. NE Ent 15:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC) And I've locked those pages down again. There should be no need for them. WormTT(talk) 15:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. #1 and #2 are certainly against policy and precedent. Reasons for block/unblock should not be made obscure; nor are ArbCom-related pages censored of user names. As for the distinction between a global lock and a local block, I think the place to request a global lock is somewhere on meta, but I see no reason to remove the local block on this user. Renaming the account locally also seems to contravene WP:CHUG because of the ArbCom-related issues. There were some ghits on Mbz1's userspace sub-pages here, but these have just been deleted. The history of the account's talk page has already been deleted, which is irregular enough already [9]. Note that the block is marked as an ArbCom block in the log: "Please appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" [10]. I question having "retired" as the only template on their user and talk page (as is the present situation) as it is rather misleading. As far as I know the community has no power to remove ArbCom blocks, but because of the poor communication of the user's status, it seems many !voters above think they can !vote to unblock. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose accommodation of this inanity, and would like to see the deleted talk page restored. We don't delete user talk pages. Period.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC) We don't mindlessly follow rules. Pillar. NE Ent 17:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I've know this discussion is closed, but I've restored the user talk page history. Its deletion is irregular (it contains the contributions of other users besides herself) and the user talk namespace is not indexed by search engines. Graham87 10:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC) No solution is going to accommodate all the conflicting wishes. However, I was under the impression that we deleted user and talk pages of banned users after a time. If it helps the user to leave us alone, I support that sort of minor accommodation. Any admin (including Kww) can view the deleted talk page if they need to see the history, and since Mbz1 isn't going to be active here ever again, I don't see how that page is needed for anything other than to review an unblock request or assess a sock puppetry case (either of which is going to require an admin or functionary anyways). As far as I am concerned, the steps taken by me, Worm, and NE Ent should completely resolve the Google reputation issue of Mbz1. If anybody sees a reason to take further steps, please explain. If Mbz1 wants an unblock, she has to appeal to ArbCom. We are not going to undo an ArbCom block without consulting them, because there's private info involved that cannot be shared publicly. Jehochman Talk 18:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC) The deletion does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, so IAR doesn't apply. No, we do not delete the talk pages of banned users. Sometimes we blank them, but we do not delete user talk pages. There's obviously no consensus to accommodate Mbz1's wishes, and I don't understand precisely why anyone would be interested in allowing the editor to hide material from future prospective employers. Why would we participate in preventing these people from accessing information that they might find useful in reaching a decision?—Kww(talk) 19:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Comment - Seems like a lot of work. Couldn't you just rename the account to something random, add NOINDEX to the renamed account, then blank the redirects and delete the remaining blank pages? The ban is already in effect, what does it matter if there are tags or not? We don't need to be punitive. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Frankly, this user should request an account name change on Commons, because that's where Mbz1 is associated with her real name in photo descriptions, something that she is apparently well aware of, but won't try to fix there basically out of laziness [11] "Changing the name on my images... Well, it could be done even by myself. I am not blocked on Commons, at least not yet, but there are a thousand or so images. I have neither time nor strength to do it." So she would rather have Wikipedia bend over backwards to rewrite history (with which she disagrees in strong terms): "Sickos who banned me lied about me, and I hated these lies to be linked to from my user page." [12]. But apparently she does have the strength to continously stalk other editors over here. Basically it's like getting sentenced to prison in a foreign country and then being forever pissed that said foreign country won't change your name on their old prison records... when you can change your name back home in order to make matching the two more difficult. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Exactly. Commons is the locus, so why bother with Wikipedia? Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose I don't see that this will have any effect on her socking or general abuse of our volunteers. If there was a passing chance that this would work, I would support. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC) oppose (due to my past involvement with issues involving this user I am not speaking as an arb or representative of the committee) Mbz1 is not a real name, and there is nothing that is forcing her to come back and stir up drama again and again and again. The only approach we should be taking to someone like this is WP:RBI. Anything else, including all previous attempts to help her, have only encouraged more unacceptable behavior. Mbz always casts herself as a victim and is seemingly unable to grasp that her problems of of her own making. We cannot globally lock an account from here. It simply is not possible. Only the stewards can do that, and they need a better reason than this utter nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC) By the way, her appeal on Commons on a WMF staffer's page is probably worth a read [13] [14]. It led to a ban discussion over there as well, which although it failed (unlike the one here) resulted in her no longer being active on that site either [15]. However, nothing precludes her from requesting a username change there and thus disassociating her real name (and photos) from the account name that has has seen so many infelicitous interactions with other Wikipedians. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Comment My only fault is that I was naive enough to come to your site under my real name. I thought that my privacy, and my reputation would be protected by WMF. I did not know that I'd be tried by anonymous users with no ability to defend myself. I'd like to respond a few points made by the opposers, and please let my comment stay. It's not right to discuss a person who is not allowed to respond. So below are my responses: She shouldn't get a free pass. Global lock is not equal a free pass. I see nothing indicating that this editor is deserving of the community's charity. Not asking for "the community's charity" asking for a global lock, and for some common sense. I am dubious of condition #2, that this person will stay away from Wikipedia. The only way is to try and see. She's harassing our volunteers. Any evidences so far? I have never ever ever violated any one of those Mbz1 is still playing games Any hard evidences I am, and what kind of games I am playing? should request an account name change on Commons. I did. It did not work, and was reverted. Frankly, this user should request an account name change on Commons, because that's where Mbz1 is associated with her real name in photo descriptions, something that she is apparently well aware of, but won't try to fix there basically out of laziness I did change my name with another one on each and every image I uploaded to commons. It does not help. There are still thousand of Google hits that have my user name and my real life name together. I lost my name to Wikipedia. Check your facts before accusing me of of laziness. I don't see that this will have any effect on her socking or general abuse of our volunteers. Then try it. What the worst thing that could happen to your volunteers if you try it? If I break my promise, which I do not, a reblock would take less than a minute. it is apparent that this person loves drama and attention. No I do not. With thousands upon thousands of my images used all over the world, and all over the internet I'd rather need less attention not more, and, yes,I love dramas,but only in theaters. Assuming that I am loving being lied about without an opportunity to respond...Why do you think I am a sadomasochist? Global locks by a user request are possible A precedent is here, and I've already created an unified user ID. If Mbz1's concern is her real name being associated with images at Commons, then the solution to any problem is at Commons. Please see this Google search with "Wikimedia Commons" excluded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.150.100.112 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC) And now the most important part. I was banned for harassment. I might be guilty of some incivility, but harassment is different, and to the best of my knowledge I have never and nowhere was involved in harassment. I have never been involved in 1.1 Wikihounding 1.2 Threats 1.3 Perceived legal threats 1.4 Posting of personal information 1.5 Private correspondence 1.6 User space harassment Please, please present me a valid evidence I have harassed somebody, and I will consider an apology, in a meantime I am proud that I have never harassed, and that I have never kicked a person who is down. Happy New Year, and thanks for allowing my comment to stay! Mbz150.150.100.112 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC) These comments make it super clear that any concession to this user would be a terrible idea. When other users cite the long history of harassment that led to her block, she denies any wrongdoing, ignoring a key part of appeals for even the shortest and simplest blocks and leaving us no assurance that she won't continue in the future. When other users doubt that she really will stay away from the site, her response, rather than assuring us that she will, is "Well, you'll just have to unblock me and see." Ridiculous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC) It makes nothing of the sort, you are far, far too biased to ever be able to offer an honest opinion in this matter. This is rather simple; unblock and vanish the account. If Mbz violates the agreement, then the status quo ante is restored, and you all never have to consider this matter ever again. It hurts nothing and no one to offer a chance here. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Obviously it's true that I am one of the users that Mbz1 harassed in the past, but I think your implication that any user that Mbz1 has harassed in the past must support this concession or else have their opinion discounted is rather silly and wrong. One might just as well say that your support of the concession is ignoring standard practice and common sense because you want to look like an extraordinarily forgiving person. Let's just trust that everyone in this discussion is coming from a place of respect for Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC) You probably know better, but it seems the community ban discussion (which, by the way, is being contested above by mbz1 as not having been policy based) is the one over here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Re: "There are still thousand of Google hits that have my user name and my real life name together." Sure, but those are mostly Commons pages, of which we have no control. There are in fact zero Wikipedia pages making the association between your user name and your full name right now (visible from Google), which are not local caches of Commons file pages. The point is that someone must already know your mbz1 handle and search for it in non-google-indexed pages here. Renaming your account here will at best move the block log. It won't change your user name in any of the AN archives etc. So anyone deliberately searching for mbz1 on Wikipedia will still find all the unpleasant stuff like the ban discussion etc. As searching for your name on Commons easily found the 5-way interaction ban discussion and what not. You can't put the genie back in the bottle on the Internet. The best you can hope for is to reduce the level of association for someone who knows your real name but hasn't heard of "mbz1". Trying to whitewash your "mbz1" username is hopeless; I'm not aware of any case where AN/I discussion archives and so forth have been retroactively redacted of usernames such as "mbz1". Also, the file pages link to your Commons commons:User:Mbz1 not to the Wikipedia one; your Commons account has its own block log, which looks just as long [16] and unflattering as the Wikipedia one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose I see no reason we should allow this, especially given some of these comments. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC) I'm still mystified how you think a global lock on your mbz1 account will do anything toward improving your on-line image/privacy issue. [17] It will just prevent you from editing any Wikimedia site using your account. The global lock status only shows in one very obscure place (SUL central auth). It won't however obscure or delete the block logs on the various sites (Wikipedia, Commons) etc. Also, the person you gave as example there is back to editing [18], so a volunary request for global lock can't be used as replacement for an involuntary ArbCom block (or site ban), unless you get ArbCom to agree to lift their block as well. (FYI, this is how the SUL page of globally locked user looks like [19].) Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose If Mbz1 regrets any of their past actions then they shouldn't have taken them in the first place. Trying to whitewash the record to be able to claim they never occurred is not they way to go. Mistreating the project and the community should not be covered up and it would set a terrible precedent of it is allowed. MarnetteD | Talk 01:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC) I am not sure what I should regret about, maybe you could tell me? But here's the deal. You banned me in order to make me to leave Wikipedia. I want to leave Wikipedia. Let it happen. But honestly I don't think you want me to leave. You want to punish me. It is the only reason you're opposing my request.Mbz150.150.100.112 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (uninformed and uninvolved user says): I know nothing about this ban or what led to it, nor anything that has happened before or since, but your comment above speaks volumes. You are, at any time, free to leave Wikipedia--WITHOUT imposing conditions, prerequisites, provisos, stipulations, or provisions regarding your leaving. If you wish to leave, no one is stopping you. In fact, from the conversation above, it seems that your departure would be welcomed. The reason your request is being opposed is not some need to "punish you"; the reason your request is being opposed is that you are using it as a blunt instrument to bludgeon the community into "allowing" you to leave Wikipedia. Perhaps if you cease your activities counter to policy, the community might be more receptive to such a request--but don't give me that bull about how we won't "let" you leave. That's a crock no matter WHO you are, no matter WHAT injustice you believe has been worked upon you.GJC 02:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) There were indeed about 11 Wikipedia space pages (Feature Picture discussions) and two article talk pages that were associating mbz1 with your name, which were not Commons caches. I've added {{noindex}} to these, so they will drop off google sometime in the near future. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Also, I apologize for assuming (based on your Wikipedia Review post, which is probably outdated) that you haven't tried to remove mbz1s from Commons. I see you've done a fair number of that, e.g. [20]. Those haven't been reverted as far as I can tell. So, can you clarify how and why renaming your account was denied there? Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Ok, I found the Commons rename and revert thereof. [21] I think the discussion is rather enligthening as to the futility of doing a rename in this case, either here or there as RTV or whatever. As I said above, it won't completely remove every apperance of "mbz1". In fact, technical limitations made it that a dummy user mbz1 was registered, with no contributions, but an intact block log of the old mbz1 account; apparently the block log is something that can't be moved?! So mbz1 asked for her account to be renamed back. Why she thinks things would be different with a rename on Wikipedia, is something I can't tell given the above. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Quoting one relevant bit from the discussion "If during the rename of my account, my old user name were replaced with my new user name in all my images, then I would not have minded my old account blocked, but the way it is now is not the way it should be.--Yyxx? (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)" where "Yyxx?" was her chosen new account. She clearly expects a rename/RTV to go into stuff like AN archives and talk pages and have "mbz1" replaced by some other user name, but that won't happen because of technical limitations on the renaming process... Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC) This discussion is completely pointlessly and should be closed immediately. Though I'm a little wary given the response above about allowing any sort of leeway towards this user, this is ultimately an ArbCom block and as such should be discussed with the Arbitration Committee's at whatever email address was in the block log. Further voting practices here are pointless until ArbCom can come up with something appropriate and perhaps voice their stance on this page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC) By the way, she also made a global renaming request. That was indeed denied on meta, although a Wikipedia wp:bureaucrat basically made the decision. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC) To confirm, as the most recent blocking administrator: Yes, this is an Arbitration Committee block. Mbz1 has requested the same changes as at the beginning of this thread from the Arbitration Committee, but it is not within the Committee's purview to grant her requests; Arbcom cannot "SUL" her username, only she can do that; Arbcom cannot globally lock her account, only a steward can do that; Arbcom cannot order a rename of her account on this project, as it cannot instruct bureaucrats to carry out this task, and also recognizes there is little benefit to doing this on this project if it is not done on other projects as well. Given Mbz1's history with this project, as well as her use of other projects to retaliate against enwiki users, there was little appetite on the part of the committee to unblock at the time her request was received. There is now a new committee, and it is within their purview if they wish to review the situation, although again most of the actions that Mbz1 is asking for are outside of the ability of Arbcom to enact. Risker (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Well, it seems her account is "SULed" enough as of 14 hours ago: [22] There are some unattached accounts on de wiki an so forth but she said in the global renaming request she doesn't care about those. By the way, I noticed (through the SUL page) she was blocked on meta earlier today, but now she is unblocked there; so it seems her SUL works "unifiedly" enough if it sees those changes. So I think a global lock on mbz1 will prevent her from editing anything through that account (in fact would even prevent her from logging in through that account), however the discussion is a bit theoretical because discussion with a steward on meta seems to indicate they aren't likely to entertain a global lock, though they don't exclude making an exception in this case either. The Committee could however examine the matter of renaming her account on (the English) Wikipedia. The ENWP bureaucrat who looked at the global renaming request basically denied it because it lacked the Committee's approval. As the experience with her Commons rename has shown, she probably won't be very happy with the outcome given the technical limitations of a rename. It seems what she really wants is her block log hidden or expunged and probably the ban discussion and log thereof as well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Comment. I don't think it is a good idea for Wikipedia to erase all the wrongdoing of a particularly disruptive user, especially one who has not been able to stay away from the project even though banned. We should retain institutional memory of the disruption so that we can easily refer to it in the future. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC) I would also like to point out that Mbz1 has repeatedly promised to retire and never come back, yet she always finds some nonsensical reason to go back on her word and stir up more drama. That is how she got banned int he first place. If I thought this crackpot plan of hers would actually cause her to go away forever I would support it even though it makes no sense, but I simply can't take her at her word. The best thing for everyone would be to close this thread now and just WP:RBI any future troublemaking from her instead of giving her the attention she craves. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2014 (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. Community unban proposal (not impinging upon ArbCom's block) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. After all the above and some "private" discussion with this is user [23], I think most of what she wants can't even be granted by the community, with one exception: removing her from the list of users banned by the community. Basically, I think the ArbCom block probably takes precedence over that anyway, although the wiki-legalities surrounding that dual sanction aren't exactly clear—I've asked Newyorkbrad to comment. I've been once told that although ArbCom can review a community ban, they basically never do so, but instead punt back such reviews to the community. So, a as gesture of minor clemency from the community, I propose Mbz1 be unbanned, so she can be removed from the list of users banned by the community. This unbanning won't (of course) affect ArbCom's block, which the community has no power to review or overturn (as I understand it.) Support as proposer. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose per WP:DNFTT. Don't pander to the nonsensical requests of a banned user who has lied again and again about leaving and never coming back. Just ignore her. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. This very disruptive person has not proved herself capable of staying away from Wikipedia. She should not be able to have her record expunged. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. There's no reason for anyone to pay attention to these requests. No justification for unbanning has been provided.—Kww(talk) 05:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Are you kidding? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Is this some bizarre form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING? MarnetteD | Talk 06:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry if it seems that way, but the initial proposal was way too complicated and depended on a lot of things that only ArbCom or Stewards could do; specifically: (1) unblock requires ArbCom's approval -- obvious given that they claimed the block, (2) rename also requires ArbCom's approval per a Bureaucrat's prior comment on the matter that he would not do any renaming of mbz1 without ArbCom's approval, and (3) only stewards could decide to globally lock the mbz1 account, and one of them has indicated this is an unusual request, which would require a sort of stewards' committee approval. So that leaves only the removal from the list of users banned by the community as the only item possibly actionable here on AN. It's also a somewhat technically redundant sanction. So I thought it made some sense to propose removing only this. But apparently the consensus is overwhelmingly against it so far, even though the users who wholeheartedly endorsed the "full forgiveness package" above (and which is well above their pay grade) haven't commented in this section yet... I suppose they're either all offline now, or they already see this discussion as a lost cause. Anyway, I think I'm done here too. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not a snowball's chance in Hell this is happening. Doc talk 06:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) This community ban discussion was improperly closed [24] (by a non-admin who voted himself), hence I think this is really on Arbcom discretion. My very best wishes (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC) This community discussion has not been closed by anyone. MarnetteD | Talk 06:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC) He is talking about the original ban discussion (evident from the diff), but he is wrong about that (too), see below. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Who is this he you are referring to. You and the blocked IP 50.150.100.112 (talk · contribs) are the only ones requesting this whitewash. MarnetteD | Talk 06:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "He" is My very best wishes commenting right above you. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC) That was nearly a year ago. The edit summary from the NAC indicated that if it was a "controversial" close it should be reverted. And it wasn't. The chances of the community ban being overturned on technical grounds is slim. Doc talk 06:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) It was actually closed later again by admin User:Salvio giuliano, if you look in the archive here. (Sorry, can't be bothered to hunt down the diff.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC) I love diffs: here it is.[25] Salvio upholds the community ban, it would seem. Doc talk 06:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks. By the way, Salvio is also an ArbCom member, so presumably trustworthy enough to close such discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose an unban without an unblock on her account necessarily implies that she would be able to return to the community, the most obvious way being using an alternate account or a sock instead of her main account. That goes against the purpose of community bans, and as I've understood from my uninvolved observation of her comments above, run contrary to the way Wikipedia works and how bans should be applied to certain editors. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Well, no. That would be considered WP:BLOCKEVASION. The IPs used by Mbz1 in this discussion have been blocked for that very reason, although in practice she can always get others. Like I said above, removing the community ban would have little practical consequences besides removing her name from that "infamy" list; but I already must sound like a broken record here so, I'm OAO. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) OK, so if I understand correctly, this is a de facto ban with the only change being the cosmetic removal of her name from the ban list as per her wishes. In my mind, a cosmetic reason is insufficient a reason to remove someone's name from the ban list, in light of the fact that bans represent behaviors the community does not wish to retain on Wikipedia. That is, it'd confuse many people about the nature of the ban. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Since when do we let banned users determine their placement on the banned user list? This is non-negotiable for the banned user, really. Doc talk 08:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose I'm actually sympathetic to Mbz1's desire to have this removed to protect her non-Wikipedia reputation, but it seems reasonable to ask her to (for want of a better word) "earn" this through complying with the ban first. If she stops editing for three months or so (thereby demonstrating a commitment to stay away from Wikipedia permanently) I'd be supportive. But not now. I agree with TeleComNasSprVen's comment immediately above about such an action setting a poor precedent. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Oppose This user also has to come through the normal channels or earn through complying with the ban.Please nothing more or nothing less than another user in a similar situation clearly follow WP:BAN .Note even editors leaving in good standing or those WP:RTV have been denied the right to delete there talk pages. The User edits triggered filter 294 (Personal Attacks) today. Note the user appears to have participated in a discussion on User:Jimbo Wales's talk page on Dec 10/12 2013 on an unrelated issue clearly violating WP:BAN. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2014 (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. Housekeeping, redirect delete Could someone delete User talk:Mbz1/article2? It has no significant history, and it is being indexed by google [26] NE Ent 12:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous (group)

On this page there's some floating text saying [[Image:Svetlana font example.png|link=List of mass shootings in the United States]] that looks like a piece of vandalism, but it's hard to remove because I can not see it when using my browser (Firefox) find function CTRL+F. Can an administrator find and remove it for me? Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It was template vandalism. The easiest way to find it is to use the[[Special:RecentChangesLinked]|related changes]] link in the sidebar and filter it to the Template namespace. -- John Reaves 01:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense since its also on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories page as well.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, template vandalism is easy to remove, just harder to detect. I was about to suggest looking at the list of transcluded templates myself but I didn't know of an easier way besides checking all of Special:WhatLinksHere. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is something wrong with my computer it appears not to have been fixed yet, can someone please correct the issue?--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah, Shirik's done it here but server cache has yet to update. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

How long will it take for the cache to update? The removal in question took place over 24 hours ago.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Help:Job queue is responsible for this, so according to this post it can take up to approximately two weeks before template/file transclusions and such get updated. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's gone now so thankfully it did not take too long.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of some LTA accounts coupled with the announcement of the new template-editor userright that has caused this recent spate of high-profile low-detection template vandalism. This may warrant further discussion, but I think that most transcluded templates should have the template-protection level applied and an AbuseFilter tagged to anons editing template-space; would definitely help in detecting, catching and removing template vandalism. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Or people can actually patrol specific namespaces manually. Voila! Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that we may want to exclude certain types of templates (such as navboxes) - and that can't be done by namespace patrol. The edit filter can be told to only list cases which don't start with "{{Navbox" (or some similar condition - I won't give any more possibilities here) - just make sure to use the old version, to prevent a vandal from doing this on his/her first edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that this same issue is NOW occuring at Barack Obama, Sr.. It no longer appears at the other two articles, so it appears that another template have been vandalized. Can someone please look into this, since if that article has been hit there is a good chance that several others are as well.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever was the issue with that page has been fixed as well so it appears that the problem is now dealt with.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Standard offer for User:Ashton 29

Ashton 29 has requested an unblock under the terms of the standard offer, and so I'm bringing his appeal the community per the offer's usual terms. According to this editor's extensive SPI history, there does not appear to have been any recent sockpuppetry, and it has been (just!) over six months since their last edit. Please add comments and recommendations below. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nutshell: With some misgivings, I would extend this courtesy but would request a ban on image uploads. As blocking administrator (in response to this ANI report), I'm uneasy with his assurances that he never meant to do wrong in terms of copyright and learned better at some vague point after his last blatant copyright infringement (one of the images he went so far as to explicitly claim he had taken it with a specific kind of camera to lend credence to his argument that it was his own work. This was uploaded two days before his block; his last upload before that was this image, with no indication of source and a blatantly false license tag). His practice of finding images around the web and uploading them without any link to the original made cleaning up after him a challenge for the editor who seems primarily to have undertaken that work. (I am unsure if that's the person he meant in this comment, later redacted: [27].) If he had intended to claim "fair use", as he asserts, it seems it would have been easy enough to cite his source rather than uploading the images he found on the internet under false claim of free license, sometimes visibly contradicted by the sources from which he took. (Particularly as he had demonstrated years before that he was capable of asserting a fair use rationale and acknowledging copyright.) And there's really no good reason ever for claiming to have taken a photograph you did not. His extensive sockpuppetry is certainly an issue (Here, for instance, he was discovered to have used a sock to try to influence the outcome of an FAC), but I would myself not oppose a lifting of the block in the spirit of the standard offer if he agreed to a ban on image uploads. If he can contribute without issues for long enough to demonstrate his sincerity, the ban could be revisited. But combing through the internet looking for potential sources of the images he uploads is tedious and not a good use of volunteer time. I would not be comfortable permitting him full contribution there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

per Moonriddengirl, an unblock would be acceptable in conjunction with an image upload topic ban of no less than 6 months during which they need to make use of their time getting up to scratch on the copyright policy. It would be worth getting some input from a checkuser to look for sleepers, etc. Blackmane (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• As per above, but only if they accept the following restrictions:

1. They are limited to one account, indefinitely
2. They have an indefinite ban on uploading images or files. This limitation may be appealed to ANI no sooner than 6 months from the date of unblocking
3. Violations of the above will lead to an immediate re-block for an indefinite period
4. These restrictions will be logged at WP:RESTRICT

ES&L 12:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per MRG. NE Ent 13:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• CU comment: I was asked to look for any current abuse of multiple accounts. While it isn't possible for CheckUser to guarantee that no abuse is occurring, I didn't see any evidence that Ashton 29 has any sockpuppets at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question Would those (Moonriddengirl—Blackmane—EatsShootsAndLeaves—NE Ent) that are prohibiting uploads of files be amenable to an enforced WP:FFU regime for the user to give them the opportunity to contribute, but at the same time have a second set of eyes check the upload for problems? Hasteur (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. NE Ent 21:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Sounds like a very good approach to me, as it would allow others to check his licensing. My primary concern is with content he uploads under claim of his own work, though. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• I would be as well. A firm requirement that even 1 falsely claimed work would result in a reinstatement of the indef needs to be made clear to them. Blackmane (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Requests at WP:good article reassessment

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.

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Months pass since requests of GA reassessment were made on certain articles. Perhaps either create GA reassessments, or deny requests. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessing GAs is not an admin task. You might want to look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, where they are already discussing an upcoming backlog elimination drive. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I said re-assessment, not assessment. Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment is deadbeat, and WT:GAN is too busy with new nominations. --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2014 (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:trongphu

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 read! Ok look, I'm not trying to evade block nor do I want to circumvent anyone. I've requested unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org, but they were making ridiculous condition that I had to edit English Wikipedia in order to be unblocked. Where is that policy comes from? All editors are volunteers. The fact whether I want to edit EnWikipedia anymore has nothing to do with my blocking situation. Can any admin please read through my circumstances for once and only once? Please just read what I wrote below. If I really wanted to evade block, I wouldn't be stupid enough to claim that I'm the blocked user. It's not about block evasion. It's about me trying to get myself unblocked after TWO YEARS of serving a severe punishment for what little I've done. For god sake, can anyone in here has sympathy and understand what it's be like to be a devout editor in another Wikipedia version but permanently blocked in EnWikipedia. SIGH... I said many times, I've paid my due for what I did. It seems like you guys just want to punish me forever. If anyone can give me a single good reason how unblocking me can do any harm to EnWikipedia, keeping in mind the condition I promised, then I will be happy to stay blocked.67.4.216.151 (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm user Trongphu. It has been almost 2 years now since I was permanently blocked by an admin. I was blocked because of this reason: "refusal to admit the initial mistake and statement that you shall continue the same line of arguments as before than changing the same." There are two problems to this block. Before the permanent block, I was blocked for a week for some disruptive edits. I disagreed with the natural of the block, but that doesn't mean I would do the same things again to get myself blocked. Quite frankly, I didn't want to get block. First, I was permanently blocked for something I didn't do, but for simply my disagreement over the last block. At the time, I was planning to quit English Wikipedia afterward, so I wasn't going to do anything. Second, the severity of my disruptive edits was nowhere severe enough for permanently. Seriously, from 1 week to permanent is quite a big jump. I think it should have only been like few weeks or at most few months of blocked, not permanent. It was simply too harsh to permanently block me for what I did. Some brief info about me, I'm a semi-active editor of Vietnamese Wikipedia and ViWiktionary for the last 5 years (overall pattern: very active some months and not active at all some other months). I have gotten myself into countless of intense hotly debates, discussions in ViWikipedia, and NEVER got a single block over there (you can look at my log over there). One more thing about me, I didn't use sockpuppet with an intend to cause trouble. I had 1 accused sockpuppet. I created it right after I was permanently blocked to say farewell as the name indicated.

Ok that's the past. For now, I'm requesting an unblock on condition that you will never see me here again. I promise to not edit here anymore, if I broke my promise, you're welcomed to block me again. Since 2 years ago, I wasn't and currently still am not interested in editing English Wikipedia anymore. To me, this is not a friendly atmosphere I can work with due to significant conflicting cultural differences and perspectives. Simply put in, I knew if I would have continued to edit here, sooner or later, I would get myself blocked again. I feel like I belong to ViWikipedia, of course. If I'm not going to edit here anymore so why does it matter whether I'm blocked or unblocked? The block has served its purpose and is no longer needed to prevent further trouble. I think I've been punished long enough. Seriously, I can't think of any reason to keep me blocked. It isn't going to help EnWikipedia anything or prevent anything. Please, don't make blocks punitive. It has become punitive. It is only hurting me. It annoys me how I've paid such a big price for what little I've done relatively compared to other permanently blocked users. It is still making a negative impact on me as a devout editor on ViWikipedia. Once in a while, someone would bring up the fact that I was blocked on EnWikipedia to make fun of me. I think this is the best way to do it. You guys will be happier without me (last thing, I'm also requesting to delete my user page. Don't worry, I'm not trying to cover up anything. The block history is alive well in my log. I simply just don't want to see my user page in EnWikipedia anymore).75.168.162.171 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable request.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Reasonable" how? If this person doesn't want to edit here, he or she doesn't need to be unblocked, they just don't edit here. Nothing else is called for. The request is ridiculous on its face. Oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

O, reason not the need!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I had my reasons why I want to be unblocked. Please read what I wrote. It's ridiculous in making a condition that I have to edit here on EnWikipedia to be unblocked (I'm still editing in ViWikipedia and will continue to do so for a long time from now). This is forcing against my will and irrelevant to my blocking issues. It is against the Wikipedia's policy to continue blocking where there is no current conduct issue of concern. I believe my condition met all the points in the Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Blocks should not be punitive section. It has been 2 years ok? I haven't caused any trouble for 2 years. This is more than enough to qualify for Wikipedia:Standard offer. And you haven't answered my question how keep blocking me can make things any better? Even if this was punishment, it has been enough ok. Again, if you can provide any reasonable answer that blocking me is for the better of EnWikipedia then I will be happily be blocked forever and will never try to raise this issue up ever again. Fair enough?67.4.216.151 (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I need to write a new essay, WP:JUSTWALKAWAY. There is no conceivable reason why you should be unblocked so you can leave the project. If you want to go away, just go away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is also no conceivable reason why I should continue to be blocked? Why does that matter? Tell me! I can see some resemblance between me and Jean Valjean in Les Misérables (2012 film). It looks like to that your ultimate satisfaction is I have to walk away like a complete loser without a chance to ever redeem myself. The key thing here is I will be an editor on ViWikipedia for a long time. Yes I will be gone here forever, but it's like I agreed to left the house and moved into a new house within the same neighborhood. You're not happy until I leave the country? Wikipedia is sacred to me. I strongly believe it's my obligation to help building this great project of mankind! That's why I don't want to completely leave it after all these very stressful experiences (probably the worst experience in my life) as I continue to edit where I'm comfortable with, which is ViWikipedia. That's truly my home!67.4.216.151 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, then edit there. You don't need to be unblocked here to do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

True. On the same token, there is no need to block me anymore. It literally has the result. I'm blocked or unblocked = no edit from me except the latter makes me feel better. Again, you haven't answered my essential question why it matters to keep me blocked and punished given my promise? That's not what Wikipedia is made for. I've told you why would it affect me as an editor on ViWikipedia and perhaps my own pride. It doesn't seem like you try to understand that. I guess that's your own choice. I have nothing to discussion with you anymore. This is a loop conversation without ending. Regard!67.4.216.151 (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you think earned you the community's charity. Was it "Disruptive editing" (4 Oct 2011)? Revocation of talk page privilege (4 Oct 2011)? "Disruptive editing, WP:IDHT" (10 Oct 2011)? "Disruptive editing" (9 Jan 2012)? "Racism accusations post initial retraction" (12 Jan 2012)? Or Talk page privilege revoked (12 Jan 2012)? Which of those earned you the granting of this extraordinary request, that you be unblocked in order than you not edit here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To that fact that it was 2 years ago and per Wikipedia's policy block should not be punitive. If not for punishment then for what?67.4.216.151 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As I noted below, I'm personally fine with an unblock with the understanding you remain barred from editing and should not represent yourself as an editor in good standing. Standard offer is a little different. It requires 2 and 3. Based on your comment, the only reason I think 2 applies is because you will not be editing at all. If you were to start editing, it sounds to me like there's a good chance the poor behaviour would continue and you even seemed to acknowledge that. And your long post asking for your unblock has given me 3 since it seems to be full of you claiming you were poorly treated whereas looking at the history, I don't feel this is the case (and I say this as someone who is part Malaysian Chinese and often critical of the US). The simple fact is, your behaviour was atrocious and an indef block to protect en.wikipedia was to be expected. So I'm very reluctant to support an unblock if you want to return to editing or under the terms of the standard offer, since I don't think we can trust you to return to editing. Since this isn't what you want, it's a moot point. But since we still don't trust you to return to editing, it would be wrong for you to claim to anyone else that you are allowed to edit here hence my comment about misrepresentation. In other words, if people at ViWikipedia consider the fact you aren't trusted to edit here relevant, there's not much we can do about that because your comments suggest to me it remains true. However if an unblock is all you want, I'm fine with that Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"[A]n unblock with with the understanding you remain barred from editing"? What is a block except a mechanical device that bars someone from editing? Why in heaven's name would we remove the mechanical device and rely solely on the word of this editor, who has repeatedly shown that he is not trustworthy? It makes absolutely no sense at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

First, you consistently brought back things that were 2 or even 3 years ago. People change over time, you know? I told you, if anyone happens to ever see me edit even 1 more time here. You're welcomed to reblock me, easy cake right? Afterward, no question asked and everyone is welcomed to ignore me if I ever bring this topic up again. I encourage you to watchlist me and check me up every day for the next 100 years (only take few seconds to check me if I make any edit here). I'm someone who would rather die than to break a promise. Don't worry. You have my word.67.4.216.151 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I, personally, do not find your word nearly adequate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to trust me (it hurts me that you think I'm that kind of person. I'm a person who has a real life outside of Wikipedia too, you know. I'm not just some people who are living in Wikipedia as in virtual world. Sometimes, we forget that editors are all real human-being) Just take my word and enforce the block if I ever edit again. Simple.67.4.216.151 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I know you're a real person, and like any other real person I can only know you through my interactions with you, or what I read or hear about you, or what I see, taste, smell or feel about you. Because for me you exist only in these words we exchange, I can only "know" you through those words -- but there are many people in the world I know with many more senses than that, and I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, while others I trust implicitly. Same thing here, there are a number of people here I'd have no problem putting my trust in, and then there are people I don't feel I can trust. You fall into the latter category, and nothing you've said in this colloquy has changed that.

Your request is unusual, unnecessary and nonsensical, and I continue to oppose it. Let's assume that you're not going to be able to change my mind, shall we? Please don't address any further comments to me. I'm sure someone else will chime in at some point, and you can try to convince them that you somehow need to be unblocked here so that so can not edit here, but edit on another wikiinstead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you're just trolling us, following up the Mbz1 nonsense with some more of the same. (Interesting coincidence of timing.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Support as I did above an unblock. I'm also okay with deletion of the user page but not the user talk page (but blaking is fine). However you should bear in mind that this is only a tehnical measure, you should consider yourself barred from here and it would be wrong to represent yourself as an editor in good standing at ViWikipedia, or any where else. You should also bear in mind that there was never any intention to permanently block you. Your block was only intended to be an indefinite one, meaning without a fixed ending period. You could have been unblocked at any time if you convinced an admin your poor behaviour would not continue. This is difficult when you insist your behaviour was fine. We don't require you to accept your behaviour was problematic but if you don't understand why your behaviour was not acceptable to us, it's difficult to accept it would not be repeated. People have had their indefinite blocks lifted in a matter of days or less when they've convinced an admin the problems they are causing will not continue. And do note that in serious cases, it is indeed normal to quickly accelerate to an indefinite block. And racism or unsupport accusations of racism is indeed such a serious issue here. In fact racist behaviour would frequently lead to a first block as an indefinite one. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has to be the strangest unblock request I have ever come across. A user wants to be unblocked in order to leave? Isn't s/he gone already if s/he's blocked? (All else fails, that's what {{retired}} is for.) ...Actually, now I think about it, I wonder if the unblock request is because the user is planning to return to disruptive editing (yeah, I know AGF and all, but the block was for a reason). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, and close this. This user is evading their account's block to make this request after their talk page access was removed for abuse of the unblock request facility. Jehochman has blocked their IP because of this. The user must avail themselves of the appropriate offwiki appeals venues, notably Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System, but they are not allowed to evade their block. In addition, the request is unfounded because if the user doesn't want to edit again they have no reason to request an unblock.  Sandstein  10:09, 4 January 2014 (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.

Johnuniq and Nil Einne's removal of other comments on talk pages

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, Johnuniq's removed my comments of a OWN and COI case on different talk pages here, here and here. He does not agree with me, but he cannot remove my opinions.

I am aware that talk page guideline does not allow this.

I am not a new editor, but I don't feel like to use an account right now, partly because my old account was targeted by editors who like to bully new users.

Please advice 124.170.221.69 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have an account, than editing with this account to avoid scrutiny of your edits is a violation of WP:SOCK. Further, article talkpages are only for discussion about the improvement of articles, other content may be deleted per WP:TPO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I lost the password long times ago. Here is the main reason I don't like use an account 124.149.39.62 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition, you appear to have only read a tiny section of the talk page guidelines. Removing offtopic and harmful posts is allowed as one of the exceptions. The section you are quoting makes it clear that there are exceptions. In fact, what you copied comes just after it mentions that there are exceptions. Although you missed the bit about exceptions right before what you copied, you also copied the irrelevant bit about not editing someone's comments to change their meaning (which is irrelevant since that didn't happen here). Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Which exception this case fit into? No rules say you cannot talk about the violation of editors124.149.39.62 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As I already said, there are at least 2 exceptions which apply. 1 is the removal of off topics posts as your posts were clearly offtopic. As Johnuniq has said, offtopic posts are frequently simply closed or moved, but when there are too many of them and you've basically said the same thing in many different places their removal is perfectly acceptable. 2 is the removal of harmful posts. Your posts are starting to cross the line from uncivil to the NPA level so removal is also justified under that aspect. I will not edit war to preserve my removal of your latest post but you should bear in mind you're IMO coming close to earning a WP:Boomerang block. And the guidelines do make it clear that article talk pages are intended to discuss how to improve the article, not to discuss alleged editor misbehaviour Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, its not offtopic. My comments are evidence of DrChrissy's OWN and responses to two editors' comments: Johnuniq wanted a deal, DrChrissy showed her 'confusion' about the dissuasion. Your accusation is not valid. Censorship of talk pages is extremely notorious.124.149.39.62 (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to take accusations of misconduct to an appropriate noticeboard or start an WP:RFC. Comments on such alleged misbehaviour on the article talk page is indeed offtopic. It happens more to IP editors than to those wih an account, not so much because we treat them unfairly but because those with an account who keep up with that behaviour earn themselves a block. I don't know what you mean by 'Your accusation is not valid' so cannot reply to that aspect. And removing crap from article talk pages is actually fairly common whether or not you consider it 'notorious'. And frankly, from experience I can say that any editor who screams censorship is usually the sort of editor we don't want. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The IP hopper has been engaged in considerable disruption, just take a look at Talk:Marian Dawkins. They have been engaged in numerous personal attacks such at this and warned. Johnuniq came up with with a reasonable solution, which was endorsed by Drmies. I am One of Many (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There are three cases open right now about COI and NPOV of DrChrissy and related articles. Johnuniq has been helping DrChrissy a lot so does I am one of Many. They are in a little gang.124.149.39.62 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• There has been quite a lot of commentary lately—I noticed Talk:Animal welfare and Talk:Marian Dawkins and Talk:Pain in animals. Here is one comment that I removed—normally that kind of thing might remain with an explanation provided to the contributor that article talk pages should not be used for commentary on other editors. However, there has been quite a lot of abuse of those talk pages in recent days and my judgment is that a line needs to be drawn to encourage the IP editor to stop attacking other editors, and instead to focus on content. I have provided such an explanation, and very recently put another at User talk:124.170.221.69. In addition to the article talk pages, see COIN and NPOVN#1 and NPOVN#2. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Updates: he removed my comments from two more pages. What he removed: here, here and here124.149.39.62 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have removed them too. If you cannot redirect your focus from editors to content, you are going to be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not research into the issue, 1)my comments are direct about content. 2)addressing the OWN COI is the prerequisite of improving the quality of articles. 3) I posted many talk direct to do with source and content (include these got removed), but no much people engaged in actual academic debates. I invite all editors to open my links, research into my statment.124.149.39.62 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of faulting others for not 'research into the issue', please provide links of comments of yours which were substanially about content that were removed. Because of the links you've provided so far [28] and [29], they had little to do with content and instead mostly about alleged editor misbehaviour. And these removals were coming after lots of similar discussion from you which we can still see in the talk pages. [30] is the only link you've provided which is partially about content, but even then you couldn't resist attacking another editor. If you are unable to provide links to comments of yours which were removed which were mostly about content, don't fault others for 'not researching' as you are the one bringing this to AN, not us. Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The information is on topic and they were not presented in the past. I formally add Nil Einne into this vandalism report, he also removed my talk page comment. 124.170.241.154 (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What do I think about this entire thread? Let me put it this way..."G'day, mate!" Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:38, 4 January 2014 (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:PUF backlog

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

---

Just a notice that there is an immense 3 month backlog over at WP:PUF. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Now only two and a half months.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2014 (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.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has a long history of reverts and edit warring with three full protections in the last three months. The last 100 revisions are mostly users edit warring over content (as opposed to obvious vandalism). Given the amount of disruption caused by edit warring on the page I propose that the article be placed on a one revert restriction which applies to both unregistered and registered users with the standard exceptions for at least 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the disruption to this article in recent months has been by one unregistered editor who obviously has several IPs available to him. Initially his edits added new content to the lead, contrary to WP:LEAD, which quite clearly states "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".[31] Those edits also added a non-NPOV slant to the lead, instead of simply summarising the significant points in the article in a neutral format. After that he started adding non-NPOV content to the article, which was removed by another editor.[32] At the same time he started adding the article to categories while it was already in a subcat of these.[33] Ultimately, community opinion was against him. At two TfDs two contentious categories were deleted and opinion was that the article not be included in the categories that the IP was adding.[34][35] Most recently the disruption by the same editor was as a result of him again ignoring WP:LEAD, replacing content that summarised what was already in the article, with excessively detailed information that was not discussed elsewhere in the article.[36] WP:LEAD quite clearly says this shouldn't be done but the IP won't acknowledge this. In fact, he won't acknowledge or discuss any policy or guideline that he is referred to. His personal motto seems to be "I don't hear that". Instead of following WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO he has his own guideline: BRAREFDIS - BOLD, revert, announce on the talk page why he's going to restore the content, restore the contentious content, edit-war until he's warned, force the article to be protected, finally start discussing, ignore any mention of policies or guidelines so he doesn't have to justify his edits, disappear and start again in a few weeks. I don't see that 1RR is going to be effective in combating this type of disruption. Because of the willingness of this editor to edit-war with multiple editors, it's just going to result in contentious edits being protected from removal. Most of the contentious edits to this article don't warrant protection at all and we shouldn't be protecting disruptive editors like this when they are clearly editing on the wrong side of the Wikipedia community opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, I get a clear sense of "one versus many". When the "one" is using lots of IP addresses, the best approach is semiprotection. Only if the "many" are enforcing something that's at variance with our policies do we need to have outside intervention, and even if that's the case (I've not checked the content in question with enough care to offer an opinion about that here), the editwarring and its consequent instability are definitely not helpful; it would be better off semiprotected while administrative intervention is being sought. And if it's not at variance with project policies, the "one" obviously is going against some consensus and needs to stop or be stopped. In my mind, we'd do better to semiprotect. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, that's exactly what I asked for,[37] not once, but back in October as well.[38] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Population history of Egypt-5 to 6 years of editor proliferation of articles, WP:Ownership and POV pushing

How many venues is this going to be reported in? This is essentially a content issue: just because you disagree with the position of the other editors involved doesn't turn it into a behavioral issue that admins would deal with. In any case, if it was a behavioral issue, these noticeboards are not well disposed to deal with the long-term behavior of multiple editors. If the OP really feels this is a behavioral problem, then an ArbCom case would seem to be the way to go - but he or she should be prepared to be told that it's a content issue. Collapsing. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

All DRNs have been withdrawn or deleted, ANI was deleted due to DRNs. This is a major conduct and not a content issue and I would like to have my voice heard and the voice of other editors who have been intimidated, drowned out and outmaneuvered by this small cadre of editors and their friends over the past 5-6 years. Possible options are user bans, topic bans and other suggestions brought up by countless of editors in AN, ANI and DRNs of these same exact editors over 5-6 years as the evidence below shows. This is the evidence so far but I am compiling more. I just want to be heard by the administrators. If I become one of the many other editors who are driven out of Wikipedia as the evidence below shows because of this so be it. Let this stand as a record. Over the past 5-6 years a small cadre of editors have become "brothers of faith" to proliferate multiple articles about nearly identical topics, assert WP:Ownership over these pages and POV push and drive away editors who do not affirm their point of view. This has gone largely unchecked, although the complaints by less experienced editors facing these roadblocks to editors are legion. Their creation of these many articles on the same topic has allowed them to exhaust the time and patience of any editor attempting to include any viewpoint in these articles that they do not agree with. In contrast, miscited or misrepresented content that does support their POV remains unchecked and unaddressed and remains stable in the articles for years, one example of this is: Talk:DNA history of Egypt#How could everyone miss this for so long? which was left intact by this small cadre of editors while constructive edits were thwarted. The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith." Who: Editors involved, some in the small cadre of "brothers of faith,"and others who have attempted to oppose it-Dougweller, Aua, wdford,, yalens, dbachmann, eyetruth, ( some who've attempted to oppose:drlewisphd, Dailey78) What: A small cadre of editors have pushed their POV over the past 5-6 years thwarting any attempts to include material that dimishes their point of view, helped by their proliferation of multiple articles on almost exactly the same topics to exhaust the time and patience of editors, especially inexperienced ones, forced to discuss on four separate talk pages any inclusions of information in these four articles that offends their POV When:Over the past 5-6 years, from 2008 Where: Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Black Egyptian Hypothesis/Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis, DNA history of Egypt/Talk:DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt/Talk:Population history of Egypt, and probably many more related articles regarding race of ancient Egyptians, but these are the ones I have been active on and am actually aware of Why: Pushing their POV, confusing and confounding any editors attempting to make changes that offend their point of view, creating ownership of the topic, supporting their "brothers of the faith." How:As this is done systematically over 5-6 years, many editors who lack the time and patience to deal with multiple talk pages over many years and many many editors are confounded in their attempts to include information that offends their POV. Intimidation tactics for any editors who attempt, like that experienced by me, are legion and do not violate the letter although they violate the spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative forum. Evidence from Article Revision Histories and Article Talk Pages Collapsed for readability (of AN); click to view the collection of evidence. Ancient Egyptian race controversy: Ancient Egyptian race controversy Created: 15 August 2008 by Moreschi ("Created page with 'Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians have been a persistent meme in [[Afrocentrism|A...'") Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&diff=589270673&oldid=232143867 DNA history of Egypt:DNA history of Egypt Created: 4 February 2013 by Wdford ("created a new article from material in DNA history of Ancient Egypt" Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Egypt&diff=589290149&oldid=536543540 Population history of Egypt:Population history of Egypt Created: 15 June 2009 by Dbachmann ("import from Ancient Egyptian race controversy"): Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_history_of_Egypt&diff=589290764&oldid=296502182 Black Egyptian Hypothesis:Black Egyptian Hypothesis Created: 17 October 2012 by Wdford ("created new artcle as a spin-off from Ancient Egyptian race controversy") Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Egyptian_Hypothesis&diff=589287690&oldid=518274123 [DELETED AND REDIRECTED TO DNA HISTORY OF EGYPT on 4 February 2013:DNA History of Ancient Egypt:[[DNA history of Ancient Egypt-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Ancient_Egypt&redirect=no] Created: 18 January 2013 by Wdford ("created a new article to collect and rationalize material on this topic in various other articles." Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_history_of_Ancient_Egypt&diff=539005592&oldid=533667717 Evidence from Dispute Notice Board/Administrator Notice Boards Collapsed for readability (of AN); click to view the collection of evidence. *Aua *Dbachmann JUNE 2009 FILED BY WAPONDAPONDA (SUBSEQUENTLY BLOCKED AS SOCKPUPPET) AGAINST DBACHMANN, also involving WDFORD, and ADMINISTRATORS-Ancient Egyptian race controversy Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive548 Selected Comments: The administrator User:Hiberniantears has reverted and protected the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This in my opinion appears to be a violation of WP:PREFER.The administrator has reverted to a version that is four months old. Regular editors to the article had worked to build a consensus over the last four months, and within one day it has been reverted. A thread was posted on the fringe theories notice board Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. But user who posted this thread, Dbachmann, didn't make any notification on the Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. So to our surprise, all of a sudden we have users reverting to a four month old version without even discussing on the talk page. [1]. I believe that such type of editing is inflammatory. We have not had edit warring on this article for two months and it has been resurrected by users who are not willing to reach a compromise and gain consensus. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "I want to assume good faith, but it is not helpful if an administrator reverts and protects an article. It just does not leave a good impression at all when there is a content dispute. There is no reason to believe that Moreschi's version is as good as any other version, he is an editor like the rest of us, and I will argue that we have proved him wrong. We have worked on this article for the last four months, we have not had edit warring, and the last time the article was protected was four months ago. Within one day Dbachmann makes some unilateral edits and the everything falls apart. I think it is pretty obvious who is causing trouble here. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)" "If you had Assumed Good Faith yourself, and actually read the latest version (i.e. excluding Dbachmann's damage) you would have noted that there is no unbalance in the content, the mainstream opinion is clearly stated in all sections, all content is closely referenced, and all content closely links to the title. Why did you instead revert the article to an arbitrary, seriously-incomplete and useless version, without engaging the many editors who actually worked on this article? Please unblock this article, re-instate the months of work that have built this article up since this deliberately-useless version, and instead block Dbachmann from making unilateral edits to this article without first achieving consensus. Wdford (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)" "This appears to be one of those things where there's a request for comment which does not get anything solved which is followed by a request for comment after another month or so which results in several users being banned from editing anything involving ancient Egypt. Is there a way we can cut out the middlemen here and simply allow the community to dole these things out, thereby preserving the content of Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) from point of view editors?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:44, 18 June 2009(UTC)" "Try again. I'm suggesting that we put topic bans in place for everyone who can't agree to disagree.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)" "It seems that whichever way we turn there stands some admin with an array of WP:WHATEVER-THE-HELL to block that avenue, all seemingly aimed at preventing the substance of the debate from being aired. Scientology has an article that dicusses in detail the substance of the viewpoint, as does Timewave Zero and many others. Why should this particular controversy be so ruthlessly suppressed? Wdford (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC" Resolved: User:Wapondaponda has been indef blocked by an amazing admin. User:Wapondaponda is a sock of User:Muntuwandi and a checkuser should easily corroborate this. I had high hopes that s/he could edit productively but clearly that is not the case. A number of the redlinked editors involved here are most probably socks of this user or other banned users. Good luck. Feel free to send me an email if you need more more corroboration of primary claim above.PelleSmith (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)" "Interesting to watch the process unfold. While you are dotting things etc, please review the Policy - using various user names is actually allowed (although I can't understand why) as long as the various accounts are not used in concert for destructive purposes. Per Dominic's CheckUser review, seemingly Wapondaponda has not broken the rules on this article - even assuming they are indeed all the same person. "Similar editing habits" doesn't automatically make them the same person - for instance we have a few admins on this very article who are showing very similar preferences in suppressing material - is that allowed, or should we block them too? Per the CU policy you need to follow a fair amount of red tape before doing a CU review - were those rules all followed, or do those rules not count when the subject of the review has been pointing out errors committed by admins? Wdford (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 "Are you stating that I cannot work amicably with other users. I've been editing for the last 8 months and nobody seems to have a problem. In fact there is a group of us editors who are in general agreement, and we have amicably agreed to disagree on content related to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This is somewhat of a sideshow, and it unnecessarily distracts from the main controversy. As Wdford has pointed out, I have not broken any rules in this particular article. It seems that User:PelleSmith has an unhealthy obsession with Muntuwandi, to the point of wikihounding [6], [7].He or she has even sent harassing emails to me about Muntuwandi. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC) *Dougweller DECEMBER 2013 FILED BY NUBIA123 AGAINST DOUGWELLER ET. Al. Alleging Conspiracy User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Nubia123 (Result: No violation)[edit] PageKingdom of Kush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)User being reportedTil Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Previous version reverted toDiffs of the user's reverts1.14:07, 3 December 2013‎‎ (UTC) 2.14:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 3.14:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 4.21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 5.04:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Comments: A group of users have been consistently and collaboratively undoing user edits and contributions to the article in favor of the material they seem to have authored. These undo (or reversion) activities are conducted by the group in a spam-style manner. As soon as I make a contribution, the material gets reverted back within only a few minutes. I tried to contribute a number of times, but in vain. One user of the group placed a 3RR warning on my Talk page today, while another reported me on the Administrators' noticeboard for nothing other than attempting to contribute. Also, the material imposed by this group, who basically have no tolerance for other user contributions, is essentially irrelevant to the subject of the article. Their material is concerned with Egyptian history with very little, or no connection, to the history of the Kushite kingdom. I find the activities of this group to be strongly abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia. This group of users include Dougweller, Flyer22, AnomieBOT, and Til Eulenspiegel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubia123 (talk • contribs) SEPTEMBER 2013- User:Dailey78 reported by User:Dougweller Black Egyptian Hypothesis, AUA also involved Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive222 Selected comments: "Well, he already got his way with the article, so no need for him to do any more edits. This is really frustrating and he should self-revert should he want to avoid sanctions. All I'm asking him is to discuss before making a bold edit to the lead of an article on ArbCom probation.Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 18:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "The other editors will not allow any changes to the article and aren't discussing their reasoning on the Talk page. We ALL have to follow the rules.When I sign four tildes, you get "Rod." My username is "dailey78." It always has been and always will be the same account. What is your point with the "here's the kicker" comment?Rod (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Also, I count only two reverts and my other edits are various changes to the article. The changes are not all the same. The changes address different sentences. All of my changes were undone by Aua without any discussion on the Talk page during the same time period in question. Why is there no edit warring notice for Aua, as well? Rod (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)" " "And I reminded Aua about 3RR, but the difference is you went to 4, he didn't. Your other changes undid other editor's work. The fact that you haven't carefully read warnings you were given or that you gave to other people really isn't a good excuse. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)" FILED BY DOUGWELLER AGAINST SIRSHAWN, INVOLVING WDFORD JUNE 2012 Ancient Egyptian race controversy Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy Editors involved: Wdford & Dougweller versus SirShawn & GreenUniverse Decision: Unclear, closed Selected Quotes:"." "We have a new editor, SirShawn, who doesn't appear willing to acknowledge this and is not only adding material that is not about the history of the debate, but is arguing the debate in a pov way. I and another editor have tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. Three editors have reverted him, Wdford then replacing some material of his that is relevant to the article. SirShawn's latest comments have included insults and the statement "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies (in the case of the non existent 90% commonality between ancient and modern claim). If you wish to play a game in which you get as many biased people to unwarrantably undo my positive and up to date contributions to this article in an attempt to start an edit war than please believe that I will get twice as many people to support my actions!"" "How do you think we can help? Explain to SirShawn the importance of gaining consensus and presenting material in an NPOV manner. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC) " "Edit warring, and accusing other editors of partisan editing, particularly when they're relying on reliable sources, are disruptive and not conducive to the editing process. Calm down, read review articles and field reviews of the topic, and if you're convinced that the article's topic needs to change from reporting the scholarly controversy, to taking the position of one side in the controversy (as a result of that side's position being accepted in multiple current field reviews), then discuss this with other editors on the Talk: page of the article before editing.' Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" " One poster (WDford) attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded. As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable. SirShawn (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" " @ Doug, Well from my POV on attitude is irrelevant as I have another POV. I've attempted to logically discuss this issue of my contributions with you two on the talk page, but in every instance both of you state your opinions and ignore my response. From there with your lack of a response continued to revert my edits using bullying tactics with claims of a 2 to 1 consensus. That shows in unwillingness on you all's part to compromise.SirShawn (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" *Eyetruth *Wdford' FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 JULY 2009 Disruptive Editing by Wdford at Ancient Egyptian race controversy Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive_editing_by_Wdford_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy Resolution:Article on probation (?) Selected Comments: "Many of you might be aware, recently there were several editors banned from the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. One of these editors, Wdford, had his ban lifted today. Almost immediately, he started editing the article; As I looked at his edits roughly one hour ago, I objected to them; I was about to explain my objection with more detail on the article talk page, by Wdford has already reverted me and I fear that this is about to escalate into another edit war. It might turn out in the discussion that my objection is unjustified, but in any case, Wdford would have to allow the time for a discussion before he reverts again. Otherwise he is not trying to find a consensus, and I think it is justified to call that disruptive editing. Zara1709 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" "Zara along with other editors on the article talk page are currently trying to work out some sort direction for this article before proceeding with adding content(which is a wise idea),this is a very contentious and highly controversial subject ,i would suggest a full and indefinate article protect until consensus can be met and before full blown edit wars break out,the article is on probation--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC) "What I've seen is Wdford adding material that does not relate so much to the history of the controversy, which is what the article was meant to be about and even at least some of the still-banned editors seemed to agree on that, but to the controversy itself. This is not promising. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" " Regardless of anything else, the edits by Wdford were very large. Doing such large edits to an article with such a fraught history, without any prior talk page discussion, ought to be grounds for reimposing the article ban. If editors won't make any effort to work cooperatively, they must be kept away from articles like this. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" "First, this is a content dispute and thus not within the remit of ANI. Second, I have a great idea: delete the freaking article and invite all the SPAs who are DEFENDING THE TRUTH! to enjoy the wide Internet beyond Wikipedia. This stupid article has been the subject of approximately one AN/I post per week for ages, and it's beyond tiresome at this point. Alternatively, perhaps an admin with some balls could simply topicban everyone who has edited the article more than once in the last 90 days, instantly ban any brand new accounts that show up to it, and generally remove the utterly stupid editwarring that has been going on here since Tutankhamun was a small child. Let some neutral people work on it without the intense POV-pushing of the regulars. Then again, that would probably be far too logical a response. I mean seriously; the kids can't play well together, so take away their damn toys already. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) " "Agreed - it's a hideous mess of unsourced statements, maintenance tags, original resource and synthesis. The Liancourt Rocks method of stubbing it to clearly sourceable statements may work, but I'd have to say that Wikipedia wouldn't be any worse off if it didn't exist. At the moment, it's just a time sink for editors who've got better things to do. Black Kite 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC") "Ah, so people who continually abuse their editing privileges--note, for example, your topicban--and waste other peoples' time should... be allowed to continue abusing their editing privileges and wasting other peoples' time? I think not. So, two proposals. Draconian? Sure. Ends the disruptive bullshit once and for all? Absolutely, and necessary in a wide number of areas across Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" " (unindent) There seems to be some confusion amongst recently arrived editors to AErc about what the title of the article means. As Dougweller has already said, it is about the historically recorded debate about the "race" of the Ancient Egyptians and those who have taken part in it. It is not a forum for wikipedian editors to provide fresh material to debate. In addition, there are already plenty of articles on Ancient Egypt and egyptology: this is not one of them. Mathsci (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" " And I find just about everything you do disruptive. So your point is..? This sort of disruption does not end until either one side blinks (not going to happen), or the people pushing POVs are banned. They are unwilling to give any ground--see also the various nationalistic disputes, the recent ArbCom ruling regarding Scientology, etc. NPOV is a foundational issue and is non-negotiable. It's time to recognise that just because anyone can edit, it doesn't mean everyone should. → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" "It is an attempt to do something about these sorts of recurring and insolvable issues. Well, I say insolvable; what I actually mean is that nobody has the gumption to do anything about it because they cling to AGF in the face of all evidence to the contrary that people involved in highly-POV nonsense like this will ever back off, even the smallest amount. The thing is, for people involved in such disputes, the dispute is intensely personal. They are upholding TRUTH, and no amount of argument is going to sway them otherwise. So, treat them like the squalling teenagers that they are, and ground them for the duration. These disputes are a major problem for Wikipedia, and the general unwillingness to deal with them is a result of the AGF-as-suicide-pact mentioned above, the inevitable pileons that result when someone does anything to upset the status quo (and seriously, the status quo is broken; innovate or die), or fear of being subjected to the bizarre attitude of ArbCom as recently exemplified by its desysopping of FutPerf who made some intemperate remarks after ages of being one of the very few administrators with the interest and expertise to deal with a specific locus of nationalistic dispute, from which this AERC dispute is semantically indistinguishable. Believe it or not, this proposal--extreme though it may be--comes after much thought about how to handle such disputes. Whatever else you may think, it is apparent that our current method of handling these issues is laughably insufficient, and pretty much anything would be an improvement. What it boils down to is a simple question: are we attempting to build a relatively reliable encyclopedia here, or not? If the answer is yes, then the only logical action that follows is to terminate (amongst other things that assail the reliability of the project) POV-pushing nonsense with extreme prejudice. If the answer is no, then we're all just wanking anyway and we may as well just transwiki everything to Encyclopedia Dramatica and call it a day. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 AUGUST 2009:Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive557#Edit_warring_at_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy_continued Outcome:" Resolved: For now, at least. Full protection imposed on page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)" Selected quotes: "Anyone remember Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive editing by Wdford' at Ancient Egyptian race controversy? That was a little more then a week ago. Yesterday I actually added my first new contribution to the article, the first sentence: "The Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians involved Eurocentric and Afrocentric considerations in the 19th and 20th Century." I have more than one reference for the term "Eurocentric"; this is provided at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph (typo sic). However, Wdford, whom you might know from the preceding discussion, vehemently opposed this one sentence, but I still can't figure out what his editorial argument for his opposition is, actually. He is saying that this is an "inappropriate POV statement" diff, but actually all I did was to refer to one of the best non-partisan sources I could find. The statement was (in a slightly different form) previously present in the article and simply flagged with 'citation needed', before Wdford removed all flagged statements from the article. diff. I think that "Eurocentric considerations" need to be mentioned in the lead. Just look at the statement of the historian to whom I referred...In any case, I can't work at the article under these conditions. If this wasn't actually a notable topic, I would have already proposed the article for deletion, but the topic is notable and I could write an article - just not under these conditions. So could an admin please take a good look a the issue? 'Zara1709 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) ""This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose." I couldn't have put it better. That only leaves the question who the editor with the fringe POV is. And it is certainly not me because I don't even have an individual point-of-view. Really, I wouldn't know what that POV should be. All I did was look up what the reliable sources, which I had previously identified, have to say on "Eurocentric", and I came to the conclusion that is is an appropriate term to describe one side of the controversy in the lead paragraph. From what he has written on the talk page, I wouldn't even know that Wdford understands the difference between an editors POV and that, what reliable sources have to say, and I suspect that I could discuss this issue for about a month and Wdford still wouldn't understand. SO it is necessary to speed things up a little. Zara1709 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)" "I suggest the top 10 contributors to the article and the talkpage be topicbanned for six months. Let non-SPAs do something about this article. Alternatively, delete and salt the nonsense. If nothing else, the name that keeps on coming up here as being non-constructive is Wdford, so a topicban there at the very least would reduce a lot of this ridiculous disruption. → ROUX ₪ 15:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "This is from the December 1996 issue of the Journal of American History: (stable link). If the Organization of American Historians, or at least the board of editors of their journal, doesn't have a problem with describing one side of the controversy as "Eurocentric", why would Wikipedia? The only reason can be that some editors at Wikipedia disregard reliable sources and rather write articles based on their own POVs. Of course, you could simply ban all involved editors, but that wouldn't solve the problem, because sooner or later some more come along. Even deletion wouldn't solve the problem, sooner or later someone is going to recreate an article on the issue, because the topic is, as one historian would put it, the battlefield of a "culture war" in the United States. Zara1709 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)" " "Wdford has already been banned from this article before. His block was commuted here [11]. Now, less than two weeks later, he's at it again. Is there any reason why he shouldn't be rebanned immediately? I'm rather inclined to ban Zara1709, also, since he/she seems to be pretty consistently edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Though looking closer, it appears that at least Zara is trying to include sourced content, not unsourced like Wdford, so perhaps that should be a mitigating factor. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) " " had retreated from the article roughly 6 months ago; I returned because I perceived an opportunity to fix the article; it appears that I was wrong with that. Previously I have broken 3rr in other controversies, but this was because in both cases statements from reliable sources that I had added were removed without justification from the respective articles. Wdford is trying to pull the same stunt here - removing the view of reliable sources from the article without going into a discussion based on these sources. I have mentioned 3 academic sources so far that describe one side involved in the controversy as "Eurocentric." However, even if I would throw another dozen sources at Wdford, he would still refuse to acknowledge the view of reliable sources. The topic of this article, Ancient Egyptian race controversy, extremely controversial. I actually have found two historians by know who describe it as culture war. I think I can honestly say that I am the only editor at Wikipedia I know who has an overview about this controversy, but there is no reason why I would have to work on the article. Unlike other editors I don't have a special point-of-view that I need to propagate through Wikipedia. I do think that having a good article on the topic would help the Americans find a truce in their cultural war, but that is not enough motivation for me to keep up with this. So unless I get an affirmation that articles on Wikipedia should be based in reliable sources (and not on individual editor's pov), I will simply retreat from the article. For already in the my first comment on my edit I made clear that this sentence was based on a reliable source, and Wdford can't possibly intent to write an article based on reliable sources when he argues against that sentence by calling it a "blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence". diff He should know that the historian I've quoted is not an Afrocentrist; he should at least have stopped to revert when I brought a quote from another historian, Stephen Howe, to whom he later himself referred. As far as reliable sources go, I don't need to put up with this, and I will not. Since it is rather unlikely that there will be another editor who could write a balanced article on the controversy (all you can expect from the other currently involved editors is material on skin color, skull shapes and Y-chromosomes), I would suggest that you propose that article for deletion. Zara1709 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)" NOVEMBER 2009 FILED AGAINST WDFORD BY ZARA1709 BY Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive575 (section Harassment by User:Wdford) Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575 -- section Harassment by User:Wdford Selected Quotes:: Background (I): It is now almost three years since I've made the first of my altogether 5000+ edits at Wikipedia, and I've learned at lot during these 3 years. So, at the upcoming Friday, at 10 a.m. local time, I will be giving a 30 minute presentation on Wikipedia at my University, for about 20-30 undergraduate students who are studying to become grammar school teachers and are having a session on web 2.0 teaching materials. One part of my presentation will be concerned with editing experience at Wikipedia, any I will give an honest account of my experience. Currently I am considering telling the students this story: Background (II): Some articles at Wikipedia are about highly controversial topics. One of them is the article "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". The controversy is about the question which skin colour the ancient Egyptians had. Why is this topic so controversial? In short: Because some white people think that every person of African heritage who is interested in the topic is promoting [a fringe pseudo-historic 'theory'] Because some black people think that everyone who denies that the ancient Egyptians had a darker skin then people from Europe is a white racist who tries to deny them their heritage. Probably not unsurprisingly, it is almost impossible to write an article on the topic at Wikipedia. After during one of these discussion quite a lot of material was removed from the article, I though: Why not recycle some material - and I added this to the article Great Sphinx of Giza. "First Incident: Yes, there actually is a small debate about the question whether the the Sphinx depicts a black person or not, and why shouldn't this be discussed in the appropriate Wikipedia article? At least until somehow there is an acceptable general article on the topic. Of course, there was some discussion, but considering how controversial the topic is, everything went nicely. Until an editor called Wdford from South Africa joined the debate on the article. I won't bother with recalling the details, however, this resulted in me giving up on the article." "Second Incident: Wdford then did some work at the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which I have mentioned previously.' As could be expected, they didn't actually managed to work it out in the discussion there, so at some point, Wdford and more then one other editor were banned from the article. I thought that this was my big chance. I previously had identified four good books on the topic, two by white authors and two by black authors, and I thought that I now had the opportunity to fix the issue. Initially, everything went well, and I was able to get the support of all other involved editors. And then, the ban, that kept Wdford away from the article, was lifted. Wdford almost immediately gave me an confrontation at the article, and after I had notified the adminstrator noticeboards two times and no one had intervened on my behalf, I gave up on that article, too" "Third Incident: I mean, there are many other articles at Wikipedia that could use a good editor. Last month, for example, I noticed an article "colloidal silver".... well except from one unacceptable edit by whom? Wdford, who had not participated at all in the discussion. I asked myself, what he possible might want to to do there. Harass me?... But this ended, when Wdford decided that he wanted to rewrite the lead and to restructure the article. His edits were, honestly, bad. Again, I will not go into the details (you can read the discussion online at Talk:Medical uses of silver yourself, if you want), but there was no way I could agree to his edits. I tried to explain this to him, but after one day of discussion I noticed that it was still impossible to have a discussion with him. The End? How does this story end? I don't know yet. But I think it wouldn't be fair if the first people I told this story to were some students who have never edited Wikipedia. So, I am giving the Wikipedia community, and especially its administrators, a chance to deal with the issue now. I am feeling harassed, as in "wp:harassment", by Wdford. Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't. He is lacking basic skills necessary for that, like the ability to evaluate sources. But he is also unable to accept criticism in any way, and every time I criticise him, he responds by accusing me of "acting like I own the article" or that like. Under these circumstances, there is no way I'll be able to recall the positive experiences I've had editing Wikipedia on Friday, so I decided to post this thread now, which at least gives this story a (small) chance of a good ending before then. Zara1709 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I can't describe this issue with full diffs, it was already depressing enough to write it this way. And probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but the effect is the same. He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia. Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor. An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford. An administrator, or any other motivated editor, needs to get down to it, read Wdfords comments and the discussions on the article I've mentioned, and then, if he comes to the same conclusions as I, needs to explain to Wdford that I mustn't continue what effectively is harassment. But if no one is willing to support me here, I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for 6 months, advise a group of 20-30 students not contribute to Wikipedia (writing articles is fun, but the discussions about them often aren't) and this article, medical uses of silver, will likely be again the topic of a few threads at the noticeboards, since Wdfords edit restored similar ambiguities and misquotations like the ones that made the article an ANI case in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I did expect some difficulties at the article, and I was prepared to deal with these difficulties. But I did not expect THIS! Honestly, if some editor with whom you had previously difficulties shows up at another issue, on which you have already spent some time, wouldn't you suspect that he his harassing you? An the reason I am writing such great blocks of text is simply. Wdford is avoiding a discussion of the actual content issue, so I have to repeat and explain my view on that again and again. (Just like you have to continue to repeat the mainstream view when you are dealing with a fringe editor.) I received some support from another editor, so probably we can solve the issue at the article - but probably not. If you want to know what problem I have with Wdfords edits, just check out my last post on the article talk page. If Wdford isn't able to identify a fringe source when he sees it, then isn't a good editor, but that alone wouldn't be a problem. But if he is unable to admit that he made a mistake and takes the revert of his edits as a a reason to start a confrontation, (and not as a reason to discuss those edits) then someone needs to get involved and explain him that this attitude is unacceptable. Zara1709 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC) *Yalens Evidence from Editor User Talk Pages Collapsed for readability (of AN); click to view the collection of evidence. *Aua-User talk:Aua "Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit] I assume you know about WP:3RR. I've reported Daley for breaking it. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)" "It's only been seven years[edit] Hi Aua, I wonder who you think I was? At any rate, as I said in response, I took it as a compliment. Keep the faith, Drmies (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)" "Queen of Sheba[edit] Thank you, i will stop reverting his edits. 'I'm not sure if he is intentionally trying to distract others in talk pages by talking about agenda and conspiracies .. Yousef --يوسف حسين (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)" "*Ah, am not particularly new to WP, even on this account (3 months and 1.2K of contributions), but yes I had 2 previous accounts where I lost the password :(. I did not seek them back, what's the point of doing so?Thanks for the note though (by the way, I have your name on my userpage).Λua∫Wise (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)How about now? Λua∫Wise (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aua/Archive2)' *Dbachmann-User talk:Dbachmann *Dougweller-User talk:Dougweller *Eyetruth-User talk:Eyetruth *Wdford-User talk:Wdford "talk page notes -originally removed by vandals wanting to hide racist tactics heing used[edit] You insert your content, but they remove it. You remove [blank]-ist dogma, they put it back. You have no choice but to perform on them what is called a revert. When other editors continue to remove your content, and you stand tall against them, you are in a revert war. There will certainly be many users of the opposite ideology. Worse still are the "neutrals" (crypto-[blank]-ists in fact, even if they don't know it!). These users have an ideology even more extreme and yet more sinister than your ideological opposites: adherence to that nonsense, WP:NPOV. Those spoil-sports can be a real nuisance, as they can be harder to bait and harder to discredit. On the plus side, they are unlikely to care as much, so doggedness may be all you need here. But don't worry, if you follow a few simple rules, you can prevail in most revert wars and in most editorial conflict, and thus spread the faith to your heart's content." "4.Find brothers-of-the-faith. With proper use of email, instant messenger, talk pages and "project pages", you can overwhelm with numbers. After all, it's all a numbers game, and three brothers alone will can nullify one "expert" in a revert war without performing more than one revert. With the recent advent of blind anti-"edit-warring" ideology in the admin community, he has no chance. If he continues to try to enforce WP:NPOV (even if he is an admin!), you can bust his sorry ass into blockville. You can revert, he must edit-war. He can spend all his wiki-time pouring his little heart and brain into the talk pages, and, as long as you or one of your friends "responds" occassionally, you can watch and laugh knowing your article is safe! 5.If the above doesn't work, you can always create brothers-of-the-faith. This means creating sockpuppets, new usernames which you control. You can create, in theory, as many as you like. If you think this is wrong, then just remember it's merely a small wrong which you are using to overcome a greater wrong! Whenever you need a friend to add extra weight to a discussion, or just that one more revert, your new friend or friends will definitely be there for you. You can even close votes and create your own WP:Consensus from time to time, when the issue is important enough. The downside is that if you do this too often, you'll create suspicion which may lead to a checkuser discovering your holy misdemeanors. The upside on that is that if you are careful and use your new friends conservatively, it will take months, maybe even years, and a lot of work, to find you out. If you are careful enough, perhaps even never. And even if they do, you can start again from scratch!" DRN discussion[edit] Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC) "AE race controversy[edit] Started a discussion at WP:NPOVN, quoted you there but I'll remove that if you wish. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC) " Your edit summaries[edit] Passing along this useful info from DougWeller. Please keep your edit summaries neutral - as they stand you are using them as commentary on editors, authors, etc. This isn't occasional, it seems to be your standard way of using edit summaries. WP:Edit summaries says "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult" and "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved."Rod (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)" "See Talk:Kingdom of Aksum[edit] Same issues really. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC) " "Black Egyptian Hypothesis[edit] Without counting, you are close to or at 3RR. I've given the other editor the templated statement but I'm assuming you know the ins and outs of WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)" Thank you![edit]Your superior knowledge of the black Egyptian "controversy," as well as your articulation of several important points in the debate, is extraordinary! I have no bone to pick with either side of the debate, but I'm really irked by militant afrocentrism (or any other forms of ultra-nationalism for that matter). I'm humbled by your ability to call BS on many claims made on the talkpage that could've otherwise flown under the radar. Thanks buddy! Λuα (Operibus anteire) 02:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "DNA history of Egypt[edit] These new edits bother me and I've moved them to the talk page, see Talk:DNA history of Egypt#Section on "Recent DNA Studies of Amarna and Ramesses III Lineages" moved here from article. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC) " *Yalens-User talk:Yalens Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

1965 – Through the Looking Glass talk page deletion

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 require the talk page for the deleted 1965 – Through the Looking Glass (Request for undeletion initiated) to be undeleted. Unfortunately, the admin (@Explicit:) who deleted the page has been inactive since 17 Feb 2013, so although I have left a request on their talk page I doubt it will be followed up on - nothing on that talk page in the last year has. The pages were deleted for non-notability reasons. I have addressed those, and require another admin to undelete them please. Sa cooke (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2014 (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.

album and book cover pictures with wrong licence

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 see [[39]] uploads, there are some cover pictures with wrong licence.--Musamies (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dealt with, and explained to user what the problem is. It looks like the book covers are of their own books, so they believe they can upload them as self-made. Understandable for a new editor. Black Kite (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2014 (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.

Undelete pages added by User:Ιερός

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.

---

Pleasa undelete Holy Monastery of Venerable Father David and St. David of Euboea Monastery created by User:Ιερός. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2014010410004961.--MARKELLOS^{Leave me a message} 22:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. FYI, this kind of thing can also be posted at WP:REFUND, and you might get a faster response there. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2014 (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.

Are next userpage promotional

I'm not sure but are next userpage User:Azarel63 promotional, if yes, please delete.--Musamies (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure looks like it. Per his talk page he's had an issue with the images he's using (not properly licensed ) and the page itself has been nominated for speedy deletion as an advertisement. I'll drop a note on his page, as it doesn't look like he was notified.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   11:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Indef blocked User:Trongphu still socking

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.

---

It's bad enough that indef blocked User:Trongphu used IP socks in order to ask for a nonsensical unblock, which was rightfully closed (see this thread just above), but now he's posted to my talk page, and that of Nil Einne, whining about the (predictable) result. Would an admin please block the IPs this indef-blocked editor is using:

• 67.4.216.151
• 75.168.162.171 (already blocked by Sandstein)
• 97.116.161.109

"Blocked" means blocked, something this editor seems not to to understand. That they claim to be a sysop on vi.wiki gives me great concern, but there's nothing we can do about that. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Trongphu's SUL info, it appears he's only a rollbacker and autopatrolled on vi.wiki, so his claim that he's a sysop appears to be a lie. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, what he claimed was that he is a sysop on vi wiktionary, and that is true. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I miseaad that, thanks for the correction. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I deny that the outcome of Trongphu's block request was predictable. Asking for an unblock after 2 years was perfectly OK. Keeping the user blocked on the English Wikipedia serves no apparent purpose other than perhaps satisfying certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others. I left some further comments at User talk:Trongphu before I noticed this new thread.

The following edit comment by Beyond My Comment was way out of order and is what first made me interested in this case: "You're a total, loser, pure and simple, and you've sullied my clean and empty talk page. I pity vi.wiki if you are one of those in charge. I think I'll have to reconsider Eric Corbett's position about shutting down the lesser Wikipedias." [40] This edit comment turned out to be BMK's pathetic response to Trongphu's pathetic response to BMK's mobbing action in the original thread. Trongphu should not have reacted in this way, but that's no reason to keep them blocked after two years when they don't even want to edit here. Trongphu has argued that editors in other projects are drawing incorrect conclusions from the fact that Trongphu can't get unblocked here, and that's perfectly plausible.

By the way, Beyond My Ken: Your old account doesn't seem to exist anymore, so I can't check your old block log. I read somewhere that you had several blocks for incivility. I wonder if one of them was indefinite. If so, then for obvious reasons (given my obsession with hypocrisy) I would be very curious whether you provided the kind of guarantee that you would reform your behaviour that your are now requiring of Trongphu. Hans Adler 13:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hans Adler: it's here and here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So it was only one incivility block, for only 3 hours, and by Sarek of all people. Striking my comment accordingly. Hans Adler 18:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that my block log disappointed you, Hans Adler, but then, you're often wrong about many things, so I'm sure you're used to it by now. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So I take it I was wrong when I mentioned "certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others"? Any alternative explanations available for what happened? Hans Adler 14:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Gee, Hans, I suppose it could be exactly what it appears to be, an editor amazed and appalled at a weird, unnecessary and nonsensical unblock request. No, I guess not, because that would mean that someone you disagreed with wasn't an awful human being, and we know that can't be the case. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. So your excuse is a total lack of empathy or intercultural competence. In retrospect that's even plausible. Sorry to hear about that problem. Hans Adler 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Hans, sure, you guessed correctly, that's it. Happy? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(Too bad I can't feel your joy at being right.) BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not feeling any joy about being right on this, though of course you can't know this. This suggests to me that you are living in a very strange, sombre world totally alien to me. I am genuinely sorry for you, though of course you will not believe me and will think I am being sarcastic. Hans Adler 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... <yawn> ... you know ... <stretch> ... umm ... <take sip of iced tea> ... whatever. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why can't we just close this thread and let the unblock ticket request system handle this case? The response to a personal attack should not be another personal attack, especially about other wikis, because that clearly doesn't lead to any good constructive discussions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have blanked the sock template on the userpage, which in the context of a former editor trying to disengage, is seriously counterproductive. I would have done the same on the talkpage, but did not want to disturb the message there. Has any administrator actually evaluated the original unblock request, i.e. whether the original infraction warrants a block of more than two years, and whether a less restrictive alternative is available? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've changed their block to reinstate talk page access. At least they will have the ability to dialog and possibly post another {{unblock}} message. Two years is more than enough, and they've not been socking over the last two years in any meaningful way (IP edits today notwithstanding). At least give them right to reply from their talk page - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 7 January 2014 (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.

Update links in a couple blocks

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 blocks on 198.38.10.1 and 80.239.242.0/23 currently point the user to WP:ACC's old URL on the Toolserver. The tool was recently moved to Wikimedia Labs, so I was wondering if an admin could change the block reasons to use the Tool's new URL at https://accounts.wmflabs.org/? FunPika 11:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done the block by User:MuZemike because he is no longer an admin. But please ask (or check with) User:King of Hearts to change his block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 7 January 2014 (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 for page move

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 have performed a non-admin closure of a multi-move request at Talk:Happiness? (Roger Taylor album), and have carried out three of the four moves, but the final one is blocking because the proposed title is on the blacklist. Presumably this is due to the three exclamation marks, but this is the way the move has been requested and is also consistent with the current title of the article.

The move in question is:

• Happiness!!! → Happiness!!! (Kaela Kimura song)

Please could an admin carry this out for me? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2014 (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.

help with new user

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 am having problems dealing with a new editor (User talk:68.201.99.145) that believes I am racist and calming lies, discrimination and hatred towards my edits. Can I get a third party to look over all this as i am afraid i did not approach the problem properly. The editor is currently blocked for disruptive editing in regards to edit-waring and personal attacks. -- Moxy (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To start with, I reminded them to remain WP:CIVIL. If they ignore this reminder, I will have their talk page access removed. If they choose to be civil, one could discuss the issue further.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Are you sure a twenty-four-hour block is enough? With this user, I'm sensing some WP:NOTHERE. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That was not my block. Anyway, I removed their talk page access, and if they continue after the block expires, I am prepared to block them for a longer period.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2014 (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 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.

---

This is an ongoing case, please see: [41]. The latest puppet is User:Internuclear. Thanks for any help! Ruigeroeland (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Personally, I wouldn't want to admit that I got indef-blocked from Wikipedia because of something as silly as making inappropriate insect stub articles, but, well, I'm surprised the user didn't create articles on ducks, because I sure hear one quacking. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. I heard it too.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2014 (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.

Please return original talk back

Anasnetworker appeared to be a promotion-only account and has been blocked indefinitely by Nyttend who also restored the relevant talk page messages. Any older revisions can be retrieved from that page's history. De728631 (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

---

User talk:Anasnetworker need some return because there are newer talk and user has been modified his own talk page with wrong year and something else.--Musamies (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is? Nothing has been removed from Anasnetworker's talkpage. Did you mean his userpage? I have blanked it as advertising. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

Musamies means [42]. User:Nyttend fixed the dating issues. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 9 January 2014 (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.

Interlink

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 to report this request. Thanks for the attention, --Horcrux92 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I understand it, you can and should remove the wikilinks, they have been superseded by Wikidata. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

Most of the interwiki links present on the page are not in Wikidata, and some are used by other items. I just tried to import them, and it does not work. Somebody needs to examine every link individually before removing it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! I assumed the user knew, but I should have checked it myself. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

Sorry, I thought I had added on Wikidata all the interlinks that were correct. --Horcrux92 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2014 (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.

sanctions warning log idea

Based on some recent discussions on ANI regarding warnings for discretionary sanctions, and actively applied sanctions, I have created the following thread as a solution to the problems with the current situation. As this would change Admin workflow slightly for sanctions and warnings, it may be of interest to those here. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Sanctions.2FAEwarnings.2Ftopic_ban_log.2Fpage Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC on usage of Pending Changes level 2

Please comment at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for deletion of incorrect image upload

While uploading a series of nonfree images, I accidentally uploaded one twice, then overwrote it. A duplicate copy of a nonfree image therefore remains at /media/wikipedia/en/archive/0/07/20140109025247!ArtieSimek1964.jpg . I believe it should be deleted under NFCC, but can't figure out an efficient way to request that. Correct file and original upload displayed at File:ArtieSimek1964.jpg. Thanx. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I just did what was needed. I'm not very experienced with images and I'm afraid I can't tell you how it should have been requested so I'll leave this thread open for now in the hopes someone will be able to offer directions for next time and confirm I took care of it properly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, all looks good from a technical perspective, and it's definitely a good situation for G7 author-requested deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way within a G7 nom to specify that the uploader wants the previous file version to be deleted, and not the file entirely? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean using the template? I don't think so. Either you have to ask an admin directly (whether via a user talk message, or a request here), or you could tag the page with {{db|see talk page}} and then explain on the talk page what's needed. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Mk. I just thought there would/should be some template that'd flag the file with a request to delete a prior version, I guess. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess you were looking for {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that works fine, except that it takes several days. We have no such waiting period for a G7 request; I meant that as far as I know, there's no way to bring the page to the attention of administrators immediately, except by making a custom request somehow. It's definitely not a common enough situation to warrant a separate template; the uses would be so rare that we'd forget about it between uses. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. But you could still use {{db-reason}} and write some specific rationale into it. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one way of doing a "custom request"; the thing I proposed and a note at this page are also workable kinds of custom requests. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

3 templates

3 templates:

• Template:Roman myth (rustic)
• Template:Roman myth (trade)
• Template:Roman myth (minor)

are generally duplicating themselves. Is any any *good* reason to keep 3 single templates instead of 1, fully described? The last one mentiod seems to be best of them (as for technical arrangement view). 149.156.172.74 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You would have to discuss that on the talkpage of the templates themselves ES&L 14:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

All were created by the same user; I've left a note asking if there were a need to have them separate. Unless the creator supplies a rationale that makes sense to me, I'll probably take them to Templates for Merging. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The place for such a pre-TFM discussion would be on the talk page of one of them, linked to from the other 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal information on WP

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.

---

Resolved

At Talk:Indian general election, 2014, an IP has posted personal information on the page. I have removed it from the talk page but it is still in th e history links. Theres not issue here to block or anything but I believe it was a policy not to have this on WP. Just bringing to notice here to delete it if need be, if not doesn't bother. Also as such theres no one to notify.Lihaas (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future I would recommend contacting the oversight team about posting personal information. Mike V • Talk 03:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Ancient Egypt

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized with immediate effect for all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing article probation remedy enacted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation. This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 02:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Pot kettle black

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

---

Hi. I am this user. I have made no attempt to hide this, and have openly admitted it several times.[43][44][45] The reason I am making log ged-out edits is that my home internet con nection is acting up, and I'm currently only able to edit from my phone. I can make l ogged-in edits from my phone, but every fe w minutes the session automatically ends and I occasionally lose edits I was working on. This is actually, I believe, the same reason my IP keeps shifting. WP:SOCK#Editin g while logged out clearly states that what I am doing is not "sockpuppetry" under these circumstances, and both User:Cuchullain and User:Ross Hill have already note d this and not reproached me for it.

There is, however, another editor who is clearly making logged-out edits in order to hound me and get away with it. The user clearly has an account, as his/her impeccable timing in reverting me [46] [47][48] indicates that he/s he has a WP:WATCHLIST and is maliciou sly watching the pages that I already edited while logged in. (The fact that I'm on a shifting IP means he/she can't be following my contributions, and I can't think of any other way he/she could know to revert me in the space of a few hours.) Cuchullain and my self both once believed that this was a specific user, but external factors that I don't want to discuss on-wiki (please e-mail m y account if you want details) have convinced me that they must be different people. However, the user is clearly either evading a block, or logging out of an active account in order to revert me anonymously.

I have been putting up with it for a while n ow, but being kettle to his/her pot as I am accused (wrongly) of logging out to make "problematic edits" (check the history and the now-archived RSN thread: all I'm doing is maintaining a limited number of r eliable, relevant English-language source s, while he/she is grasping at bogus "NOYT " straws, and making straw-man argument s about the "validity" of a barely-relevant Japanese-language source, clearly as an excuse to revert me wholesale). The most recen t string has also seen him/her revert my removal of problematic OR that I am trying to discuss on the talk page: he/she has provided no explanation of why the removal is being reverted.

I don't know how to properly deal with this , but can someone please ask him to disclose the name of his/her account or something?

182.249.240.17 (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can get a clean connection on your mobile device, why can't you log in to edit? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that the cookies, needed to stay logged in, are lost. The edit page, including the token needed to save the edit, aren't. The statement made in the first paragraph is technically quite possible. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I know that on some browsers there are settings that automatically deletes cookies whenever a session is ended or whenever a browser tab or window is closed. I have done this on my phone hence why I never edit on my phone. If there is a connection issue that causes sessions to end automatically, then this is entirely reasonable/ Blackmane (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those explanations. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Notified (and welcomed, in case it's not a dynamic IP) the editor in question. All the best, Miniapolis 21:58, 7 January 2014 (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/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)

There are some issues with this deletion request here, as I strongly suggest a lot of the multiple IP-adresses and newly created accounts are only voting against deletion because they have been rallied on a forum to do so. They are asking people to vote on this to prevent said article from being deleted, even when it has been long established to be pseudo-scientific nonsense from Brian G. Gilmartin's loveshy-theory. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This person is once again lying for his/her own ideological benefit. All the editors and voters on that discussion except me have multiple edits on other issues and their accounts have been around for a long time. The second lie is that the term involuntary celibacy was invented by Brian G Gilmartin. This is not true and this editor will always be unable to prove it. Gilmartin invented the term love-shyness and had nothing to do with the term incel.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the fact that you are actively campaigning for keeping the page, and there have been several IP-adresses voting to keep the page from being deleted. This to me is very suspicious and since there are several online forums dedicated to these (nonsense) terms, I got more then a little suspicious. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If by "several IP-addresses voting to keep the page from being deleted" you actually mean one IP address, sure. Resolute 14:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the only unregistered IP addresses voting in that AFD were those who were for deletion. This person is simply not telling the truth. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

An admin will review the AFD upon closing, and discount non-policy based !votes, and also discount possible socks. Accusing someone of "lying" is not very nice ES&L 11:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to the recruiting (affecting both the involuntary celibacy AFD and the Brian G. Gilmartin AFD). Because love shy dot com is blacklisted, you'll have to remove the spaces.

• http://www.love-shy.com/lsbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24171

Could someone add notice of the recruiting on both of the AFD pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And another blog post (the blogger seems to be claiming to be User:MalleusMaleficarum1486). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I added nowiki tags around the blacklisted URL and removed the spaces. That allows it to appear as text without a link. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) This really doesn't seem like a matter for AN; the {{notavote}} tag at the top of the AfD should suffice. Even so, although I am neutral about the subject's notability, I don't know if the {{notavote}} tag is necessary after all because several of the "keep" !votes are from established users. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat

Pretty unambiguous legal threat from an IP claiming to represent Toll Brothers (though the IP's based in Belgium, for whatever that's worth). Since the image in question has been (very sensibly) temporarily removed from the article, and per WP:DOLT I haven't blocked the IP (though I've no complaint if another admin feels it should be blocked), but I thought it might be something worth discussing here. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you would classify the removal as a "sensible" response to a legal threat made by a random IP. The WMF has lawyers to deal with this. Unless they say so, this is a simple case of fair use covered by Wikipedia:Logos. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked and the logo restored (neither by me). US Trademark law is clar, a trademark owner cannot prevent others from using the trademark to identify the products and services when discussing them, even negatively, provided that the person using the trademark does not attempt to pretend to be the owner, nor to trade on the good will or reputation associated with the mark, nor publish anything likely to confuse the public as to who or what goods or services the mark represents. DES ^(talk) 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Aside from hoping that the company hire counsel that has heard of nominative use before, I suppose that someone could help the IP by posting a link on his user talk page that describes how to file a proper takedown notice, rather than making his alleged employer look silly by stuffing it into the middle of the article.

But along those lines, it's possible that the IP isn't the lawyer whose name is given. It's possible that this was posted by someone who (perhaps legitimately) received that boilerplate letter, and is trying to publicly shame the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that 109.202.157.221 (from Denmark) has now started posting the exact same message. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've poked the WMF legal team just to give them a heads-up; if the ignora-ah, singularly-educated "lawyer" does actually file some paperwork they'd probably appreciate not being totally blindsided by it. Ironholds (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request by User:Drift chambers

Drift chambers (talk · contribs) requested an unblock via UTRS; however given that the block was nearly two years ago and was partially based on an ANI discussion, I thought it best for the community to have a say. The unblock request is as follows:

"Requests for unblock is when a blocked user believes that his or her blocking from editing has been unjust and wishes to contest the block. It is often used when administrators make mistakes in policy, or maybe that that editor was involved in a dispute and was unfairly treated."

so, firstly; the template i used here was the only one i could find on this occasion, and secondly, it isn't my intention to discredit , or bring into question the acts of administrators. That i was blocked was an administrial descision, and therefore beyond my practical scope to understand. All i want to say is that, and to re-iterate (again) : my behaviour at that time was unacceptable, but at this time i would welcome mentoring and guidance on my editorial decisions. Also, that is the nature of my appeal, to bring to the attention of those powers concerned that, this editor is willing to change and understands previous (previous) mistakes, which he has no intention of continuing or making again.

so this previous User would welcome contributions from editors concerned and who ever else feels some thing needs to be added.

Thank you to those concerned, whatever the outcome, for your time and patience (which i hope will be given to this User)"

Note that Drift chambers wrote in their unblock request that they have lost access to their password (for what it's worth I can confirm that they did attempt to reset it). I'm not sure what repercussions this will have on the unblock request, or if it gives cause to deny it outright, but the idiosyncratic writing style is certainly a behavioural match. I take no stance on the merits of the request and I'm acting solely as a neutral admin bringing the request here for community review.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Nick has already declined the unblock request, so I suppose this is all moot.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have made a preliminary decision to decline, purely whilst waiting for a more detailed explanation from Drift chambers (or rather, the IP address believed to be Drift) about why they feel they should be unblocked, given the original block was due to competence issues (and to an extent, because the IP failed to disclose they were Drift and that they didn't have access to the account any longer). It's a competence block, unblocking them (or rather, sanctioning their creation of a new account) is a minor issue and as they've managed to correctly get an unblock template to work, and find their way to the UTRS system, I don't foresee any issues in allowing the creation of a new account, but I would just like to double check they do understand why they were blocked before sanctioning the creation of a new account. Nick (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nick made the right decision in declining the unblock request procedurally — when an unblock is being discussed here, an unblock request on the talk page has the unintentional effect of producing an admin-shopping situation. Everything's a lot simpler when we put everything about the unblock idea on the same discussion page. No comment on whether said discussion should result in an unblock. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Yamanoue no Okura

Can I get an intervention here? User:Juzumaru and I have been arguing over whether the article should claim as fact the theory that he was a member of the "Yamanoue clan" based on a single source, and whether we should even mention the mainstream theory (supported by the majority of scholars and mentioned in the majority of encyclopedias) that he was born in the Korean kingdom of Baekje. I've been debating this with him for weeks, and I'm certain the reason he's completely unwilling to bend regardless of any evidence is that he is only on English Wikipedia to promote an anti-South Korean political agenda. 182.249.240.10 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If no admin intervention is needed here, I'd suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan seeking input given that admins have no special authority over article content. Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see that there's been a slow moving edit war for the last week and a bit, so I've protected the article to allow for dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wacky stats

this edit appears to have added to speedy deletion categories a whole lot of pages that don't actually qualify for deletion. I have reversed the edit but the pages are still appearing in the speedy deletion categories, probably because of caching issues. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I've got most of them. If there are any pages left in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that don't belong, just give them a null edit and they should be removed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained hike in article viewing statistics

(I've copied this discussion from a recent archive to continue it.) Hello. Please see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/San_Francisco

Is this triple hike over and above the longstanding traditional baseline something Wikipedia would investigate as some sort of potential computer-generated phenomenon? There is no such hike in the San Francisco Bay Area article ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/San_Francisco_Bay_Area ). Please also peruse the long-term viewer stats before the past 90 days, about 8,000 per day on average. The current bump appears downright bizarre and implausible.

Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It is currently colder and snowier in SF than it is where I live in South-central Alaska. I suspect that is the source of the interest, although it is also worth noting that they are hosting the Super Bowl pretty soon as well. Looks like I was mistaken about that last bit, but the freakish weather seems like the most likely explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm neither a mediawiki expert nor a pageview one, but it seems likely that this is due to this bug (discussed on the Wikimedia-l mailing list recently). To quote the linked email: "Around August 2013 a site change caused internal housekeeping messages to be counted as page views by our webstatscollector software. As the patch was rolled out progressively, every month more bogus page views were added, up to several billion per month in November." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that bug didn't increase the pageview stats for any particular article, it's just that "views" for non-articles such as Special:CentralAutoLogin and the Autonym font were included in the total-site statistics. Anomie⚔ 22:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So, is there is a possibility of a computer-generated phenomenon that you guys would look into? The trend is like nothing I've ever seen on any city article in Wikipedia - a brand new and unprecedented three-fold jump in views which is then sustained. Current events happen in cities all the time, but they don't profoundly alter the viewer statistics in this fashion. Castncoot (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the weather can't possibly account for the 90 day traffic growth. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. The cold snap is about a week old, and as for snow, Beeblebrox, there hasn't been a flake. Our "rainy season" has been unusually dry so far. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I request a (senior, is there such a thing?) administrator to launch a formal investigation here as to why these numbers continue to be unrealistically high like this. Going from longstandingly 8000 to recently sustained 27000 views per day would raise a red flag for ANY city article, especially when the ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/San_Francisco_Bay_Area ) article shows no hint of a parallel bump. If these apparently inflated numbers are indeed found to be legitimate, then hooray and all the better for this article. But if there is a glitch (either good-faith or not) occurring, then it is paramount that it be fixed.

Regards, Castncoot (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Problems with our software are the responsibility of the server admins and the developers, for the simple reason that they're the only ones who can do anything; administrative rights don't enable us to do anything that would skew stats, aside from unrealistically cutting them by deleting and create-protecting a page that was formerly getting plenty of hits. If it's not a software problem on our end, it's something done by a third party: either someone has (or someones have) misconfigured a bot to make a ridiculous number of requests for certain pages, or our stats are intentionally being affected by someone (attempting a long-term denial-of-service attack?), and we can't do anything about either of those. And by the way, Beeblebrox, San Francisco isn't the only place in the 48 states that's colder than Alaska; on Monday, our high here in southern Indiana was slightly lower than the high in Barrow. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Internet is a weird way of looking at a complex planet and we don't always find out what causes such spikes. Could it be that a TV soap opera in India currently has a sub plot in San Francisco? Or could it be that some bit of malware is signalling each fresh infection by adding 1 to that page count? We may never know, and there's not a lot we could do if we did. Remember the article is just as good whatever the reason for the page view bump. There are plenty of problems that we should fret about, arguably some that are "paramount", this is not one of them. ϢereSpielChequers 07:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ there, or at least to clarify, that if there is indeed a bad-faith reason behind the spike, then it is indeed paramount to get on top of it. Would it be possible for an admin to at least check with one of the server admins regarding this? Castncoot (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The point being that there are really just two ways to stop bad-faith reasons: either you figure out their IP addresses and send secret agents to hunt them down (not very practical for a non-governmental organisation like WMF), or you tell the network to refuse traffic from the entire world, thus shutting off the whole website (not much in line with our organisational goals). As long as you know where to go (I don't), you can contact the server admins regardless of your user rights; admins aren't needed for that purpose. Nyttend (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment/User conduct - Arzel

An RFC/U for Arzel (talk · contribs) has been posted here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arzel.2 Thank you. - MrX 00:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it entirely appropriate to post this here? Do notices for all new RfC/U get posted to AN? -- John Reaves 01:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's appropriate. I'm not sure if all RFC/U notices are posted here, but why would we want to keep them a secret? The idea is to get community input, and especially input from uninvolved editors.- MrX 02:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the matter. I can just imagine that some people may see it as forum shopping/canvassing and am curious about precedent. -- John Reaves 02:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There is precedent: here

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC provides guidance for publicizing RFCs. This notice also complies with WP:CANVASS. Of course, WP:FORUMSHOPPING does not apply at all.- MrX 02:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember seeing this done very often, but it seems a reasonable approach. It was done quite neutrally — until you get to the RFCU, you can't know whether MrX is a supporter of the RFCU, a supporter of Arzel, or someone neutral who just wants to make sure that it's not ignored. This is a highly-watched community board; announcing it here will get input from a wide range of community members, rather than just a small group who would be biassed. It's just one announcement, and very brief, so the other parts of WP:CAN, section "Inappropriate notification", are likewise not a problem here. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is basically when you try to get different results at different places, but this is attempting to increase input on the page where the discussion's already been started: completely the opposite of forum shopping. Just please remember that RFCUs are linked at the top of the page, just under {{cent}}; if this were inappropriate, it would be best to remove that little box entirely. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and sort of. RFC/Us appear in the centralized discussion box included near the top right of the page. In this case -- because there was an ongoing WP:ANI thread, it seemed reasonable to note the opening of the RFCU. NE Ent 03:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 1,397 pages

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 discussion here claims that 1,397 subpages of User:C were created by another user (User:Amit6) in 2009/10. The subpages are listed here. Amit6 has said "Delete those pages" (diff). Rather than tagging each for speedy deletion, would someone with the necessary inclination and skill please consider a mass delete. A little more information is at AWB tasks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm prepared to batch delete these barring any technical concerns anyone may have. -- John Reaves 04:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Time to call in Special:Nuke? I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone use that over Special:Delete. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 04:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I just tried it. Apparently the pages are too old to be nuked; Special:Nuke only works with "recent changes". —Soap— 05:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry to John Reaves for stealing your thunder. It only took a few minutes with Twinkle, so I figured why not do it. My apologies if that was somehow out of policy because I don't have a bot account, but my understanding was that mass deletions are OK, we just don't want mass page creations. —Soap— 05:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I planned on using Twinkle as well, but I wasn't sure if deleting that many pages at once would piss of the server or not. -- John Reaves 06:08, 12 January 2014 (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.

What do we normally do about an AfD created by a sock?

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/Slavic Vedism was created by a sock, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajputbhatti/Archive#02_January_2014. In fact it's a dreadful article - I've just trimmed it heavily, and another name for Slavic Neopaganism (or Russian neopaganism]], but I'm wondering if the AfD should be closed as sock-created and perhaps a new one opened? Deleting it doesn't seem the best option given the discussion there. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I look at the votes. If all the votes have been to "keep", I close it immediately, and may even delete the AFD if participation was light. Since the article will be kept, the opinion of every legitimate editor on the AFD is respected by that action. If legitimate editors have voted to "delete", I let it run, on the grounds that those editors having expressed an opinion that requires community consensus to act upon constitutes a substantial edit.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller and Kww, i actually read around that any user is allowed to simply remove the comments/edits made by sock puppet(if the main account is perm banned). And now the article doesn't seem to be qualified for any type of deletion, because it includes 100% related material within the article. No more unrelated stuff. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, I did suggest that the !voters refrain from commenting here. You made your opinions clear at the AfD. You are technically correct but circumstances govern what we should do. Please don't delete anything from it. Kww's response makes sense to me. Let it run. Deletion would be appropriate if there had been no responses, but given that there is one delete !vote now, to close it and reopen it doesn't make sense to me, and that would be the alternative so far as I'm concerned. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Kww that it should be allowed to run as long as there is any support for deletion from non-sock editors. The nominator's behavior has already been mentioned in the discussion, so commenters (and the eventual closer) there can take it into account. --RL0919 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (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.

"Other pages link to the page you are about to delete"

While speedily deleting a page, I noticed a warning during the process that said "Other pages link to the page you are about to delete". Is this new in the last few days? If so, I suggest that it be modified to display only if other pages in articlespace link to the page about to be deleted. Any page being deleted is likely to have some page linking to it -- such as the user talk page of the page's creator, or a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpage. But links such as those don't carry the implication that the page being deleted might be encyclopedic, whereas a link from another article page might carry such an implication. (I tried looking at recent changes in the MediaWiki space to see if I could find when the warning was added, but I couldn't find anything relevant.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:VPT section "Deletion warning in new version of MediaWiki". Nyttend (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Request help from an administrator to nominate an article for deletion

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.

---

Resolved

I would like to nominate an article for deletion but I do not know how to do this. I request an admin help start the AFD process and I will comment at the AFD discussion once it has been started. The article I want to nominate for deletion is the article about the Wikipedian administrator James Heilman. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you mean the article James Heilman? There are step-by-step instructions at WP:AFDHOW; do those help? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I started the AFD but I do not know if I did it correctly. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, that should be done now, thanks. For future reference, you did not need an Administrator specifically to do this; WP:HELPDESK can provide help with/answer questions on editing/using Wikipedia. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 00:01, 13 January 2014 (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 to move or rename Shramana page

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 see this discussion.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Just be sure to change the text within the article to match the title. Mike V • Talk 06:16, 13 January 2014 (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.

Transclusion error?

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 tried to slightly tweak this RFC request so it could be listed as a subsection instead of its own section, but as soon as I clicked on "edit", it took me to a completely different section. So then I tried to edit it the long way (from the very top of the project page), and there it isn't even listed. Anyone know what's wrong? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think I fixed it. The entry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure had an incorrect heading level, and that was being transcluded here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2014 (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:Jmh649 abuse of position as administrator

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

---

There is currently a NPOV discussion going on at the NPOV Noticeboard here and here. I placed a NPOV template at the top of Circumcision to notify new users about the NPOV discussion so they can participate. User:Jmh649 has removed the template several times which can be seen in the following diffs, 1, 2, and 3. I gave him a warning here, he reacted to this by threatening to block me here.

I should also point out that User:Zad68 is also one of the users involved in the content dispute at Circumcision who does not believe there is a NPOV violation. ScienceApe (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here. You made three reverts and then Jmh649 told you that you might be blocked if you continue. He was correct--you should expect a block if you break 3RR. He didn't say I will block you, so there's no issue with admining while involved. I'm not sure why you're reporting Zad68 either, he's certainly free to maintain that the article is NPOV. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? I didn't report User:Zad68, I merely mentioned that he is one of the users involved in the NPOV discussion and his position. Indeed he did not explicitly state he would block me, but the impression I got was that he would use his administrator powers without going through the proper channels. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The status of an NPOVN discussion is not the only valid reason for removal, as stated in the {{NPOV}} documentation. It's one of those other reasons that Doc James discussed with you in your conversation with him about it on his User Talk. Zad68 03:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyone is free to boldly add a template to a page they feel is non-neutral, but if it is reverted, then it's time to discuss. See WP:BRD for the relevant practice. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand. We've been discussing for a long time and getting no where. Please visit the relevant discussions here and here. It has all the information. Long story short, we have been discussing for months now and getting no where, that's why I took the discussion to NPOV Noticeboard. User:Jmh649's edits have not been constructive, he has been trying to stifle any changes to the status quo. He's pushing an agenda based on the evidence I cited at the NPOV Noticeboard, that's why he's removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So it sounds like you tried to change the article and failed to get consensus, and now you want to tag it to reflect your disapproval, correct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

NO I DID NOT. I never tried to make any edits to the article besides putting that template on the top recently, and you can check the edit history if you don't believe me. I only made suggestions and remarks on the talk page, all were stonewalled by Zad, and Jmh649. You first strawmanned me by implying that I'm reporting Zad when I didn't, and now you made baseless assumptions about my editing behavior without even reading the relevant pages I linked. ScienceApe (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Based on what? I only started the discussions at NPOV Noticeboard a few hours ago. ScienceApe (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Small detail, you are also threatening to block Jmh649. Seems like a case of sour grapes. The Banner talk 02:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I warned him which I stated in the beginning because he was removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So? You warned him that the next step could be a block, but due to the same type of behaviour he warned you that the next step could be block. So no issue here about misusing admin-rights as warning is a normal process during an edit war, giving you (and him) the chance to stop. But instead you tried to use a Plan B to get rid of somebody opposing you while involved in a content discussion. If you have promised Santa to be a good boy this year, don't be shocked when he has some penalty points in his book... The Banner talk 03:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ScienceApe is not an admin and cannot "threaten" a block. At best they can threaten to report. The same does not apply to Doc James: their warning on ScienceApe's talk page can easily be read as saying "I will block you". I have suggested to Doc that they use the standard edit-warring template, which is more neutrally worded. A personally tweaked warning from someone who also is an administrator can easily be read as a threat, so in that sense the complaint here is justified--but I don't see the need for any administrative action at this point, except to reiterate the general point, that in specific situations admins should avoid sounding like admins if they are primarily editors in that situation. And let me add that there is no proof of abuse here. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? ScienceApe (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the documentation at {{NPOV}} says. Are you not actually reading the documentation for the template you're trying to use? Zad68 03:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about what it says on the template. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2014)" ScienceApe (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Click through to the template documentation and read that. Following what the template documentation says should resolve this. Zad68 03:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I already read it. On what grounds are you justifying the removal of a NPOV template on an article when there's an on-going discussion at NPOV Noticeboard? ScienceApe (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry we're having so much trouble communicating. Maybe somebody else can help explain what the documentation says. Zad68 04:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is there still a basis for this to be here as an open discussion at WP:AN? Zad68 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is why I mentioned Zad68 in my initial post. I wasn't reporting him as Mark Arsten's suggested. I mentioned him because Zad68 is on User:Jmh649's side. ScienceApe (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the above suggestions to read the NPOV documentation, a simpler idea would be to think how Wikipedia would work if anyone was able to slap an unmovable POV tag on an article. There would be lot of tags if they could not be removed until everyone was happy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't read the discussion. This isn't something that I slapped on there haphazardly. This is the result of months of constant and fruitless debate on the talk pages. Further, I'm not the only one who believes there is a NPOV violation. In fact I did not act on this until User talk:Hans Adler made this comment. At that point I believed there was enough dissent to challenge the status quo. ScienceApe (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The basis of your NPOVN discussion is IAR. So you are basing your proposed article content changes on a head count of like minded editors instead of high quality sourcing and Wikipedia content policies?? Zad68 04:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So far, I see no evidence of "abuse of administrator powers" by Jmh649. I see him acting as an editor in a content dispute. I have read the discussion on the talk page and at NPOVN, and I agree with the point that Johnuniq made above. Tags should not remain on an article indefinitely just because one or two editors dislike the current version. This article should be neither pro nor anti circumcision. It should remain balanced.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said he abused his position as an administrator to intimidate me with a block, which is just as egregious of an abuse as actually blocking me. Whether or not he was going to block me himself is independent of the fact that that's the impression I got from his warning. Strawman fallacy, the tags were never on the article indefinitely, I put them on earlier today, furthermore the intention was never to keep them on indefinitely. I only intended for them to be on the article until the NPOV discussion was over. ScienceApe (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you are strawmanning me again and misrepresenting my position. I was explaining what was the impetus for me to bring the issues that we've been having for months to NPOV noticeboard to demonstrate to Johnuniq that this wasn't a haphazard thought based solely upon my own will. I can't count how many times you've strawmanned me, and I'm getting tired of it. Please stop it. ScienceApe (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? I was simply letting you know that if you continue reverting you may get blocked. It was just a heads up. You are more than welcome to ignore it. I will not be blocking you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if both of you were blocked for edit warring. The user, no matter how misguided he may be, was trying to point readers to a NPOV concern via a link to a discussion in the template. You showed up and bit his head off. You might have caffeine running through your veins, but it would be nice if the "stimulated" amongst us would slow the fuck down and discuss things once in a blue moon. I'm not seeing much discussion about the tag but loads of reverts. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose a better idea. Leave the NPOV template on the article until the NPOV discussion is over. Then you can remove it. Leave us both unblocked so we can participate in the NPOV discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a NPOV issue. Having a couple of editors show up (a number of which are WP:SPI) who disagree with the best available evidence (recent systematic reviews and meta analysis) complain does not make it so. No one has been able to articulate an issue on the talk page here [49]. This is a requirement per the NPOV template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The talk page clearly links to the NPOV/N discussions, so the intent of the requirement is met. NE Ent 11:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all Jmh clearly went WP:3rr. Secondly WP:ADMINACCT requires "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (emphasis mine). His curt dismissive reply to SA's initial inquiry Not how it works does not meet that standard. (So how does it work, then? is the natural response). The template itself states "do not remove until" so editors invoking the fine print of the /doc should have the courtesy to wikilink it; template docs are often not read (e.g. {{hat}} documentation requires hats be signed, but that's frequently overlooked.) Finally, the path of least drama™ is to leave the tag, let the NPOV/N discussions run to a close, and then remove the tag.NE Ent 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Another admin failing WP:ADMINACCT. Which means it will get swept under the carpet once again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell me Lugnuts, when did you stop beating your wife? Resolute 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

After I stopped punching your mother. Why do you ask? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to get involved in the article in question bring high quality sources as was suggested by a few others here [50]. ScienceApe is very well aware of the referencing requirements of WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I can only recommend against following the advice of Jmh649 (signing as "Doc James"), the user who passed this article as GA a year ago. The article's current owners count a position paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics (a professional organisation of physicians who mostly practise circumcision and profit from it, in the only Western country that has extremely high circumcision numbers) among the sources of highest quality, but downplay a position paper by the Royal Dutch Medical Association which comes to opposite conclusions. And given their numerical superiority there seems to be little that can be done about this. Hans Adler 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as neither organization supports universal neonatal circumcision I do not see this contradiction of which you speak. Neither organization supports a ban either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the KNMG doesn't support a ban, but here is why: "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case." [51] But this doesn't fit your narrative of circumcision as an entirely rational, beneficial, painless and harmless procedure which is merely rooted in tradition. For a start, it contains the word "mutilation", which of course is essentially taboo on the article because it sounds so negative. (It does appear once, under "Aboriginals".) So you keep marginalising this just like you are marginalising sources that cover circumcision from a legal or cultural point of view. Hans Adler 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Zad68 removed the POV tag with the following edit summary: "assessment of consensus at WP:AN discussion was that this tag wasn't supported, and the prerequisites for the use of the tag have not been met, as detailed on Talk page". [52] Does anyone else think that this edit summary is deceptive?

• There was and still is no such consensus in this discussion, let alone among uninvolved editors.
• Zad68 does not even claim such a consensus on the talk page, but only claims that there is no consensus that the tag should be there. (No wonder. The question has hardly been addressed between all the red herrings.)
• Zad68 is, however, hiding behind a misreading of a statement by Mark Arsten above: "Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point." This clearly must have referred to the (false) consensus at Talk:Circumcision that has existed for years, rather than to any consensus in the present discussion. Given the state of this discussion when Zad68 wrote that [53], it's hard to believe he genuinely misunderstood the comment in this way. Where a question has not even been discussed, there can be no consensus on it.

I will now reinstate the POV tag as the article is severely biased and represents exclusively an American, pro-circumcision bias while downplaying adverse effects and the significant non-medical aspects of the practice. Hans Adler 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark has clarified his statement (below) and I understood him correctly. Will you be restoring the article to the status quo ante by removing the tag now? Zad68 18:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The clarification doesn't help. By "the present discussion" I meant the present thread at AN, where you claimed in your edit summary that a consensus existed. There did not, and Mark Arsten did not claim it. Apparently you just put it into the edit summary because it would have been a much more convincing justification, and by referring to the talk page for details, where you misrepresented Mark Arsten [54], you got a certain degree of plausible deniability. Very unfair tactics, but not at all untypical for what has been happening at that article.

Once again in detail, as it is tricky:

• Your edit comment: "assessment of consensus at WP:AN discussion was that this tag wasn't supported"
• Your comment on Talk:Circumcision trying to justify the revert: 'As covered at the WP:AN discussion here there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular Mark Arsten's assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point"'

This was a sneaky moving of goalposts. First you claimed consensus in the present thread, which obviously didn't exist. Then you toned it down to non-existence of consensus in the present discussion plus Mark Arsten's 'assessment' (what a great word for a single editor's opinion) "of the consensus of that discussion", where "that discussion" is sufficiently vague to refer to the present thread (though you can plausibly deny that you intended the confusion) or to Talk:Circumcision (which Mark Arsten meant but doesn't make sense mentioning in this way because he's just a single voice). Hans Adler 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of your comment is you ascribing motivations to my actions that just simply aren't true. I don't appreciate the ad hominems. My only position was that there never was conensus for adding the article-wide tag in the first place, and on Wikipedia if there isn't consensus to add something to an article, the default is to return the article to the status quo ante. My reading of Mark's statement was that his assessment as an outside administrator of the discussion was that there was not consensus for the tag. Mark's clarifying statement below confirms that he did indeed say what I thought he said. Any outside admin's assessment of consensus will always be "just a single voice" because any admin is only one person at a time. Other than that, I don't feel further discussion of this with you will be productive. Feel free to help yourself to the last word. Zad68 22:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

True, but the tag is removed after consensus is determined (e.g. An afd tag stays in place until the discussion is closed). Given that discussion at Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Circumcision is ongoing, the tag should be replaced. NE Ent 22:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please could somebody explain which rule was invoked when deciding to unilaterally remove the NPOV tag? Despite reams of conversation on the matter above, I am yet to see which rule it was that overrode the "do not remove this tag.....". And whatever the rule is, it also raises the question that if the tag is subject to unilateral removal by one or two people who don't agree with it, before any debate has been had, what is the point in having the tag?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The specific line that justifies its removal is It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My view is that the issue is whether there's justification for adding the tag in the first place. Per the NPOV template instructions I've pointed out, plus the other comments here, there isn't. Zad68 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked you this before, I'll ask it again. How are you justified in removing a NPOV template from an article that has an on going NPOV discussion at the NPOV noticeboard THAT YOU AND Jmh649 ARE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN? ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify my position above since I've been mentioned again, I believe there is currently a consensus about how to present the information at the circumcision page. Consensus is on the side of those who want the article to adhere to WP:MEDRS-best practices. Hans and ScienceApe found consensus against them, and want the article tagged to register their disapproval. This is improper--and it's not ADMINABUSE to point that out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, you made that remark only hours after I even made the NPOV discussion at NPOV noticeboard in the first place. The discussion is still ongoing. ScienceApe (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone can link to a diff where SA or Hans have stated they wish to tag to express disapproval, how can someone possibly know what they want? I thought the purpose of the tag was to attract discussion. If that's the case, what's the harm in letting the tag sit for a day or two? NE Ent 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:John Reaves has protected circumcision and prevented any user from adding the NPOV template to the article. When I questioned his wisdom in this, he flippantly responded as follows: Oops, I protected the wrong version. and That's the point. What is the issue here?. He added the protection despite the fact that no one had been making content changes to the article. He's abusing his admin powers to prevent anyone from adding a NPOV template to the article when there is an on-going NPOV discussion at NPOV noticeboard. ScienceApe (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be sure to notify John that you're involving him in this AN discussion, you may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so. Zad68 21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Admins generally protect the current version of an article, it's nothing personal. Again, not ADMINABUSE!!!! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

He betrayed his motives with the remarks he made. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe, have considered that your mind reading abilities may be of better use outside of Wikipedia? -- John Reaves 21:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What the..?? John is an uninvolved admin who was patrolling WP:RFPP and responded to my request here. Zad68 21:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry. This is normal. Just accept that there is nothing we can do to move this article to NPOV. Wikipedia is dominated by American males, an incredible proportion of whom is circumcised, often not even for religious reasons. That comes on top of the self-selection bias from which the topic suffers anyway. And of course the technical medical literature, which is biased. The latter because in the US it is written by people who circumcise, and outside (at least in the languages accessible to me) it's not a big topic at all. Yet. Expect things to change once the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany have had their say on the recent legalisation of infant circumcision, which puts parents' religious freedom above their babies' right to physical integrity. They are not going to like this, but it will take many years for a case to reach them.

For some reason, the 'wrong version' on which an article is protected is almost always the non-fringe one when there is fringe POV pushing. That's fine. But for the same reason the 'wrong version' on which this article is protected will almost always be the more POV one. Not good, but it's no use trying to stop a river. Hans Adler 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans Adler adult white US Males have a very high proportion of circumcision, but religion is not generally the direct cause. Outside of the Jews and Muslims which may do so as a religious obligation, the rest are "medical". Now, one may certainly debate that that "medical" logic of "cleanliness" etc was influenced by morality several decades ago to try and reduce masturbation, but second level effects like that are difficult to trace. At the time of my birth (mid 70s) it was pretty much an automatic action by the doctors, without even notifying or asking the parents (which my European father was quite upset about). Now it is a much more deliberate decision. When my son was born they were very clear about asking if we wanted it or not, and providing (what I consider neutral) pro/con literature, including the common european POV of sensitivity loss and the information about minor protection from some cancers etc. My understanding is that rates are falling off dramatically, and in a generation I would expect the proportions to be quite different. My understanding is also that in the black community, the rates already dropped off 10-20 years ago. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Source discussion

So, as far as I am able to decipher, ScienceApe has provided no sources that justify the POV claim, discussion or tag, but plenty of charges of corrupt admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Read this and this and this, and then tell me with a straight face that the article properly reflects a global view on circumcision and covers all aspects of the topic with due weight. Hans Adler 23:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Belongs at the NPOV message board, or at the article talk page. Which is where the information was requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I already listed a long list of concerns over there under its own heading. Here is where you implicitly denied that they are there, by focusing only on ScienceApe. Maybe Jmh649's trick ("I could go through these one by one but we have already", followed by a comment that will cause severe digression if I respond) made you think they have been properly addressed already. Hans Adler 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I challenged you to maintain that the article is neutral after reading these 3 sources. Instead, over at NPOV/N, you claimed that the first source is in Dutch (it's in English), claimed that all three sources are too long to read, and asked a set of questions which you afterwards revised implicitly as a question for specific change proposals and fully cited opinions rather than quick summaries: "As suspected (got a long answer above with no proposed text, and no sources backing opinion)."

Stop this gaming. Hans Adler 00:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Asking WikiProject Medicine (and its members and enablers) to stop "gaming" is tantamount to shutting down their pet project. The only thing that's going to make an impact is starting an RfC or an arbcom case. The project is involved in so many concurrent controversies it would be an easy task. They have basically rewritten site-wide policies and guidelines to suit their own local agenda (WP:MEDRS) and they will attack and revert any editor who challenges them. While I can respect and understand their personalized battle against pseudoscience, they have taken to rallying the pitchforks and torches against anyone (and any source) who challenges the incessant stream of propaganda coming from the medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex. This has devolved from a well intentioned, good faith effort to fight ignorance and pseudoscience into an organized jihad led by the priests of scientism that has crept into every aspect of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this case is ripe for ArbCom. petrarchan47tc 04:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. ScienceApe (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested too. --Nigelj (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hans Adler: I am (still) attempting to understand what the dispute is, your long posts over there likewise gave no sources, and as the discussion there showed, ScienceApe has still not answered my question about the nature of the dispute backed by reliable sources.[55] You supplied sources here, which forks the content discussion. The discussion there shows your sources have either been addressed or don't hold up.[56] The discussion of the sources and content is still over there, where it belongs. The issue here is that there seem to be some conduct issues.

@ Viriditas, a similar situation with Cannabis, where you want to argue from primary sources, when there are scores of secondary sources available.

In both cases, if admins would read talk pages, they might address some troubling behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done nothing of the kind, but once again, you keep making false accusations. You and your project have attempted to falsely portray cannabis as a dangerous drug that threatens mental and physiological health by manipulating and cherry picking poor and biased sources. That you folks are doing this across the encyclopedia in multiple topic areas appears to be the underlying complaint, but please, continue to try and deflect your attempts at skewing articles by blaming editors for "troubling behaviors". Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And again, a review of those talk pages will reveal who is "cherry picking" or using "biased sources". Um, since I started this section with my post, please do not remove my subhead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a review of the sources indicates that you and the project are deliberately misusing them to push a POV. Like the claim that medical cannabis causes physiological disorders. I requested that source and reviewed it, and found nothing whatsoever supporting that claim. This is par for the course. You guys are pushing an agenda and misusing sources. And you are tag team reverting to promote your versions. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have access now to almost every source discussed; by all means, if someone has misrepresented a source, raise that on talk and I will provide quotes if I have the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time Viriditas has altered the section heading of the section I started; please stop.

I have made a third request for sources at the NPOV noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]I agree with Sandy here: much can be gleaned from a look at these talk pages. A review of the talk page at Schizophrenia, for instance, shows that although MEDRS says "The nature of the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis is complex and remains unclear", the WikiProject Medicine team (or, "PM") decided to ignore these reviews, as is revealed here, and to ignore information about conflicting evidence or beneficial effects from cannabis, mentioning only positive "links" and "association"s in the article (from 2007 & 2009) sans context. The important context from MEDRS is that a causal relationship has not been proven (from 2013 & 2010). This MEDRS was supposedly the PM's entire driving motivation, but when presented with evidence that went contrary to a particular narrative, it was ignored. Edits showing negative effects, for instance with regard to cannabis and pregnancy, were made in a frenzy while this new context waited (and still waits) to be added to the Schizophrenia article. There is a strong and obvious bend toward adding negative effects and eliminating or ignoring neutral and positive effects from the entire suite of cannabis articles by the PM team. petrarchan47tc 03:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting summary. There is, btw, an edit pending on schizophrenia (that everyone agreed to on talk and RexxS summarized per multiple secondary reviews) that hasn't yet been made only because there was a troublesome (now blocked) editor on that page.

You might have more simply posted a reminder that the consensus edit hasn't yet been made; much more effective usually than walls of text, as we've discussed before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Here are before and after diffs for a few of the articles:

Current: Medical Cannabis > long-standing version (pre Project Medicine)

Current: Cannabis (drug) > long-standing version

Current: Effects of cannabis > long-standing version

Current: Long-term effects of cannabis > long-standing version petrarchan47tc 04:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't work on these but at first glance the organization and sourcing were both much improved. I see old primary sources and quotes from individuals have been replaced with up to date secondary sources. The focus isn't on making sure negative things are said, but rather that the best quality sources are used and represented well. How did this turn into a general referendum on WP:MEDICINE anyway?? Zad68 04:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree this has got off-topic, but it worth looking at the "long-standing versions" of the cannabis articles being touted here for a scandalous example of Wikipedia at its very worst, delivering a massive payload of bogus health information to the unsuspecting reader (cannabis is known to treat brain cancer ... right). The claims made were supported - if at all - by very poor sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The fact that people use cannabis to treat brain cancer is an incontrovertible fact. 40% of patients use cannabis or some other alternative treatment to treat their brain cancer.[57] The anti-cancer effects of THC are well known, so that isn't in dispute. Whether cannabis actually works or not is an entirely different topic. Again, we see WikiProject Medicine confusing facts about how a drug is used (verified) with its efficacy (unknown, unproven). And the reason we don't have an answer is because 90% of cannabis studies amount to either a regurgitation of archaic anti-drug propaganda funded by the government, a solitary narrow focus on inconsequential negative effects (dude, where's my car?), or an inability to study the drug in depth due to research constraints imposed by governments. This is a solid historical fact verified in any reputable article or book about cannabis. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia had was: "It is well established that the cannabinoids present in cannabis are effective treatments for gliomas". That you can't even acknowledge the problem pretty much says it all. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I addressed exactly what you said in this discussion. I did not, however, address the subsequent strawman that you added after I addressed the discussion, which I will of course, address now. The statement, "It is well established that the cannabinoids present in cannabis are effective treatments for gliomas", appears to be based on the published literature and research performed by Complutense University of Madrid and GW Pharmaceuticals. What "problem" is it that I am supposed to acknowledge? Stop making shit up, please, and stop wasting my time with inane comments that go absolutely nowhere. "What Wikipedia had" has no bearing on this discussion. We are discussing the tag team revert warring behavior of WikiProject Medicine, not what some stoner added to an article. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there is a 'fight' shows that not everyone has a neutral interest in MEDRS and adding information to the encyclopedia, as opposed to pruning articles into mere shrubs, as with Medical cannabis, then patrolling them so that only Project Medicine team members can participate without being reverted. Someone really interested in working on the page, and interested in MEDRS could add: "THC, the main active component of marijuana, induces human glioma cell death through stimulation of autophagy" JCI 37948. I gave the Project the benefit of the doubt at first, but do not see any indication this effort is really about building neutral encyclopedic articles. petrarchan47tc 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

... anybody adding that would be introducing misleading information through using a poor source (so would not have read and/or understood MEDRS). The implications of having this text in an article on the long-term effects of cannabis would amount to the most cavalier kind of OR. An editor would do better to heed MEDRS and use a high-quality secondary (review) source, say PMID 18088200, maybe quoting: "With regard to cannabinoids, at present, they have shown notable antitumor activity in different animal models of glioma, but their possible antitumor effects in patients have not been well established. The only human clinical trial on gliomas that has been conducted attempted to confirm whether THC has potential as a therapeutic agent [73] . However, the results were inconclusive and did not outline in an unequivocal manner the real advantage of cannabinoid use." In other word, the medical reality as reported in reliable sources is 180° opposed to the statements made in the version of the article you seem so keen on. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Your work on the Medical Cannabis page changed the hard work of multiple editors and spun it entirely: with two edits. One can find a wide array of cannabis studies to support a favoured conclusion, though mostly the conclusions state that causation is rarely found. Your team came in with an obvious anti-herb POV and found studies to prove it. "Supporters" can also find ample studies to support their POV. The previous versions of the articles needed a lot of work, but they did have the advantage of allowing the reader access to both sides of the issue. The studies and wording left behind after PM's hostile takeover shows a strong POV as well as a near-complete lack of knowledge about the subject. I brought in a cannabinoid researcher to help me look at the science, since I didn't see any experts working on the articles and since your team has experts in alopathic, rather than herbal medicine. However, I was told this was canvassing, and a banner is now at the top of cannabis talk pages warning folks who may have been asked to join the conversation. I noticed this paranoia is being used to literally ignore editors who question the cherry-picking. I truthfully expected your team to embrace the cannabinoid researcher and use him to help with your work. Instead, Sandy used my talk page to canvass for anti-Petrarchan47 editors, to initiate an RfC about me. Alexbrn has reverted me at every opportunity (except today, I might add, now that folks are watching).

The Project Medicine team decided to paste to the Lede remarks from a review even though the content was not covered in the body. The Lede went from this to this, and finally, because that wasn't negative enough, to this. I was reverted by Alex who said my MEDRS-supported claims about research were not supported by the body, whilst in the same edit, he left Project Medicine's version on the page, which was guilty of the same thing; there was no discussion of liver damage in the article, and indeed organ damage from cannabis is unheard of. Without a discussion of why cannabis affected those with Hep C, the reader is left with a deluded impression of the cause. (Science shows cannabinoids are protective of the liver. I asked for more understanding of this science from the biochemist and he states: "The article says generally that cannabinoids prevent and treat liver injury. The only exception mentioned is that of a heavy cannabis user with chronic hepatitis C. In this case cannabinoids may exacerbate liver fibrogenesis. An alternate explanation might be that cannabinoids could cause immunosuppression if CB2 activation is suppressed. So you could say that cannabinoids are protective of the liver except in the rare case of heavy cannabis use in a hepatitis C patient.") petrarchan47tc 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

All I am getting out of this discussion is that petrarchan47 has a significantly different view about sourcing. To pick one example, the editsummary of the second of the first two edits by Alexbrn that petrarchan47 cited says "replace a bunch of weakly sourced stuff with stuff sourced to two strong secondaries" and that's exactly what happened. Before it was sourced to a "News & Opinion" article in a magazine, a newspaper article, a popular press article in "The Inquisitr" (?) reporting on a single primary research study, and this primary research retrospective study. After Alexbrn's edit the content is sourced to this systematic review published in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association and this medical toxicology reference book by Donald G Barceloux. Barceloux has a lot of letters after his name: MD, AACT (American Academy of Clinical Toxicology), FACMT (Fellow of the American College of Medical Toxicology), FACEP (Fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians) and is a well-published toxicologist, see these for example. The improvement in the sourcing in Alexbrn's edit is off the charts. If petrarchan47 is calling out this kind of edit as an example of the terrible things WP:MED project members are doing to articles, I don't even know what to say, we're not even on the same planet on this. Zad68 03:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC

Is that all you're getting? Did you miss the edits to the Lede about liver damage? You have missed my overarching point, so I will state it again: there is science all over the map with regard to cannabis. Therefore, those with a strong POV and a limited amount of research are likely to fall into a trap by showing which studies/claims they choose to highlight. I am not arguing that prior sourcing was appropriate or preferable, but that the MEDRS chosen to replace it, and the wording of the presentation, is very obviously cherry-picked and not a neutral, overall view of the topic. There was a lot of information thrown away in those reverts, some of it historic and widely considered an important part of the medical cannabis story. Also, editors wanting to fix this problem are being reverted regardless of having MEDRS to back them up. And this is being done by a team of influential, prolific and tightly-knit editors leaving ArbCom, in my mind, the only real solution. Ultimately, we are adults writing encyclopedia pages for adults. We should add more, not less, information about this topic, and work together to look at all the science, and come up with a good, balanced review of the research available. The team seems to attack pages about alternative medicine but I am not sure how much attention legal opioids and their consequences are receiving. petrarchan47tc 04:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another example of cherry-picking to arrive at the opposite conclusion as MEDRS: is here. In actuality, "The strongest evidence for the health benefits of medical marijuana or its derivatives involves the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and the spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis." This statement from NYT can be substantiated by a quick search of PUBMED, like here and here and here.
• Project Medicine also claimed that people had died from shooting up hash oil, removing mention (Project Medicine version) that the cases of hash-oil deaths were in lab animals (pre-Project Medicine version), and apparently not fact-checking whether cannabis-oil junkies is a thing. Also, the confounding factor of oil in the bloodstream was overlooked in the desire to make the subject seem dangerous. petrarchan47tc 05:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Yet another. In this edit, Sandy removed a ton of information about the healing effects of cannabinoids, saying "we don't need this in two places", and leaving a link to the medical cannabis article which has only one sentence about the patent, saying simply that it exists (though prior to Project Medicine, it had its own section), thereby removing this information from the Pedia with a very misleading edit summary. petrarchan47tc 05:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As we seem to have arrived at general grievances with WikiProject Medicine: While I can't speak on cannabis as I haven't made any research on that, I am under the impression that some influential people have seriously problematic blinders on. Perhaps more instructive due to the sheer absurdity and the absence of any plausible political motivation, is the project's reaction to a move from Epidemiology of teenage pregnancy to the neutral title Rates of teenage pregnancy.

Apparently, some editors really believe that terminological fashions among medical scientists trump NPOV concerns to the extent that it doesn't matter when we create the impression that teenage pregnancy is a health problem. (Child pregnancy is a health problem. Teenage pregnancy is only a social problem, and has only become one recently and only in the industrialised world.) See WT:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 31#Epidemiology of teenage pregnancy article moved to Rates of teenage pregnancy for that old discussion. Stonewalling and closing of ranks made it way too hard to come to the compromise title. Writing for the enemy is all well, but finding a compromise with a party that refuses to cooperate or accept obviously valid concerns requires way too much mind-reading to be practicable. Hans Adler 09:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's gone far beyond that point. The project works well as a group but when they run into any kind of resistance, they become tag team revert warriors for The Truth. WP:MEDRS is only a guideline formed by local project consensus, but they are using it to trump the site-wide policies and guidelines. They have unilaterally redefined the notion of a reliable source while at the same time, placing local restraints on how sources can be used and when they can't. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that WP:MEDRS is completely in line with WP:RS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So, the argument I'm seeing as to why removing the NPOV template was justified, is that its placement is merely a disruptive tactic used by a small minority of users who did not get their way in some previously held rigorous debate. Which I would certainly accept as valid if that debate had indeed been held, and if it could be shown that those users' concerns had been clearly shown (by WP:CONSENSUS, and by RFC/ArbCom if necessary) to have been quashed to the satisfaction of the community at large. Has such a debate been had in the case of the neutrality concerns on the circumcision article? If so, please could someone post a link to the final outcome? Conversely, if that final debate has not been had, I see no reason why the editors concerned should not be permitted to put the NPOV notice and allow the debate to be argued out per due process, and escalated up the dispute resolution process if no firm consensus can be reached.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

One of User:Hans Adler's concerns regarding neutrality as stated on Jan 8th, 2014 is "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article".[58] I asked for a reliable source to back this up a few hours latter [59] and am still waiting for a reply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Amakuru, I'm wondering how this "debate" will proceed if we can't get reliable sources to support POVs not given due weight in the article; I've requested them three times at the NPOV noticeboard. I believe it's right for debate to escalate when reliable sources have been presented; I'm concerned that an article can be tagged by participants who haven't yet presented a reliable source in response to my queries. In fact, I still don't know what the proposed additions are, missing text or underrepresented sources are, which makes it hard to present a solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

STOP STRAWMANNING THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ARTICLE. I gave a response to your request, I have the same answer for you here. ScienceApe (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe, your mileage may vary, but one way of approaching POV disputes is to say, "Here is the content that is missing, misrepresented, not given due weight, whatever, and here is the reliable source upon which it is based". If you would do that, some of us might understand what it is you are disputing; in fact, we might even be able to address the concerns if we knew what they were. It would also help if you would remove all the discussions of different argument kinds, strawman, logical fallacy, etc from your posts, because whatever point it is that you want to make is being lost in your arguments about the arguments. For a discussion of POV to go anywhere, it needs to be based on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop pontificating. Pointing out the logical fallacies that you, Zad, and Jmh have been making is to demonstrate that your rebuttals have no validity. SandyGeorgia is dishonestly and deliberately obfuscating the issue by strawmanning my arguments and trying to derail the discussion to chase a red herring. ScienceApe (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the problem might be on your end. Since a number of experienced editors are rejecting your arguments, I think you should consider the possibilities that you're not communicating your ideas well or you're not understanding the sources and guidelines as well as the editors with more experience in the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But the argument isn't over the removal of a well-supported placement of an article-wide tag, as there never was consensus to add it to start with. The argument is over whether there's support for the addition of the tag in the first place. It's for the reasons that Sandy points out that I feel the prerequisites (as documented at {{NPOV}}) to support the initial placement of the article-wide tag were never met. Otherwise—to elaborate on what Johnuniq pointed out above—any dedicated POV-pusher (in the general case) could slap an article-wide tag (or several of them) on as many articles as they wished and they'd all have to be there until that POV-pusher got bored with adding comments to the Talk page. We'd probably end up with multiple immovable article-wide tags on a majority of our most-read articles. In this case, as the stated goal of the tag is clearly being fulfilled, it simply isn't necessary to have it added. Zad68 14:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If addition of the POV tag required a consensus, we might as well delete it, as it would only ever be applicable in those rare situations in which all factions agree it's a bad version, just not on how to fix it. (Or in this rare kind of situation.) Once it is on an article it can only be removed if (1) there is a consensus to remove it, or (2) it's obvious there will be such a consensus because there are no valid concerns.

You appear to be removing it based on something like (2), but the problem here is that you and Jmh649 (the editor signing as Doc James) appear to have a very biased view of which information is medical as opposed to political, sociological etc., and appear to have redefined the meaning of "reliable source" as things appearing in PUBMED, even for statements that are not medical claims. And consequently your assessment of what is or is not a valid POV concern is totally off.

A key fact that you guys seem unable to grasp: MEDRS applies, by necessity, to medical claims in all articles, not to all claims in medical articles. Same principle as for BLP. Initially MEDRS, just like BLP, was misleadingly formulated so as to imply otherwise. This was fixed by universal consensus after I brought the problem up in 2010, see WT:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 3#Scope of this guideline. Hans Adler 18:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the team has taken ownership over what can be included in the cannabis articles even when the content had nothing to do with medical claims. Like here, where "sweeping claims" cannot be attributed to CNN (?). The claims seem 'sweeping' simply because the Project Medicine team has not done their homework. petrarchan47tc 23:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But this edit by RexxS is totally reasonable isn't it: we don't source sweeping claims about a whole field of scientific research to an opinion piece broadcast on CNN by a TV doctor. (And by the way, this insistence on labeling unnamed editors merely as part of a 'team' is uncivil and shows a lack of good faith assumption.) As you have written elsewhere, you have built your own collection of 'not negative' material, and you are pointing to this in your comment above. This speaks of a problematic approach: we should not assemble and work from sources by filtering them on their their POV, but fairly represent the best possible sources whatever they say - the article will then automatically be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you and your team have placed yourselves in the position of determining what the 'best possible sources' are, and although I might bring MEDRS to the table, my sources are deemed no good, unnecessary, or not good enough. You've used sources to claim that cannabis hurts the liver, when the opposite is true; you've used MEDRS inaccurately to claim humans are injecting hash oil and dying from the cannabinoids; you've claimed 10-20% will become addicted, when the vast majority of MEDRS never mention a figure over 10%. You've claimed we can't quote Sanjay Gupta, because he is on TV!, but when I find MEDRS ("homework") that supports what he says about skewed research, my sources are problematic too. Your team schooled me on the need for the almighty MEDRS, but ignores the research I've collected and maligns me for having done the work. This is not about sourcing, it is about a POV plain and simple. Your team has introduced egregious errors and spin to the encyclopedia during your rework of the articles. I have asked Project Medicine to review what I saw as tendentious editing from Alex, and was ignored. I asked Sandy to look into it, and received the most acidic response any Wikipedian has ever given me. You defend each other to the end, and do not work as individuals so I have no inclination to address you as anything but a "team". petrarchan47tc 01:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and that WP:AGF will not be assumed by you for anyone you deem to be in this imaginary "team" (which seems to grow to include anyone with whom you disagree). I notice yesterday you were in such a hurry to attribute some edit you didn't like to this "team" that you launched an accusation invoking racism, even before actually bothering to read what had happened (hence the hurried retraction). This behaviour does not help the project. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The team includes Dr Jim, Sandy, you, and a few others who've helped out such as Anthony. You have the Project Medicine talk page where this team is given working orders, and where Sandy has gossiped and fear-mongered about me to anyone passing by. As an independent editor, it does feel as if a team or a gang descended on the articles. And it has been the case that only edits and wording approved by this team is allowed to stay on the pages - and no, this isn't an improvement in content, tone and overall even if it is an improvement in sourcing. As for the switch from "Cannabis" to "marijuana", the basis of the latter is in racism, and I pointed this fact out. Sandy was not happy when I corrected her use of "marijuana" at Medical Cannabis, so it was a bit surprising to hear we were on the same page this time. I erased my mistake quickly, but have had this rubbed in my face a few times anyway. petrarchan47tc 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, anybody left reading (pity the reader!) can draw their own conclusions from what you've written. Looks to me like an WP:AGF failure and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, as I said above. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• At this point I don't see how any additional comments here might be of benefit to Wikipedia--at least not comments from me. If any outside administrator monitoring this Administrators' Noticeboard still sees value in this thread, can explain what it is and needs my input in particular, please drop me a message on my User Talk. Thanks... Zad68 18:43, 10 January 2014 (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:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Appeal by Alfonzo Green could use at least cursory participation from utterly uninvolved admins

This AE appeal is threatening to bog down under the weight of retreading the original case, on top of which we now have arguments that none of the admins who assessed the original case are "uninvolved" this time around. If we could get one or two admins who weren't at all involved the first time around to sort this out (if only to offer the opinion that reassessment by the original admins is OK), it would help to get resolved what I at least feel is turning into a trial by ordeal. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes please Zad68 15:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Are there any specific policies there? Can an uninvolved administrator basically write anything (obviously not offensive etc) in the section for uninvolved administrators?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, more specifically we're looking for a close. Evaluate the merits of appeal, and close with "appeal accepted, topic ban lifted" or "appeal declined, topic ban remains in place". Also take into account the notes from the comments in that section. Of course if you think the appeal need more discussion you're welcome to make that comment too and leave it open. Any admin can do this using their best judgment. Zad68 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I will have a look in a couple of hours if nobody beats me. (I am completely uninvolved and have never heard of this user).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  That'd be perfect Ymblanter, thanks. Zad68 15:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I extended the discussion by two days, and I would welcome opinions of administrators who did not give their opinions during the original topic ban consideration. Whatever happens, I am going to close the case in two days from now.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Old files missing permission

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.

---

Hey all - quick and easy task. On December 31, I marked the following files for deletion as having no permission:

• File:Ultimaker's founder.jpg
• File:Ultimaker 2.jpg
• File:UltimakerOriginal.jpg

These files are taken from the official Ultimaker website, with no indication of them being freely licensed. 12 days later, the uploader of the images removed the deletion tags without providing any evidence of permission, which I just now noticed. If these files could be taken care of, that'd be great. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:51, 15 January 2014 (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.

CFD backlog

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:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 8 has a couple of open discussions (which I have !voted in) - you know what to do... GiantSnowman 13:56, 14 January 2014 (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.

Backlog notices on AN

@Salvidrim!:The header also says

"Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices."

-- John Reaves 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess either of these need to be changed so that the directions are consistent. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with John on two points:

1. The backlog is atrocious. We've got discussions that are a month old with clear consensuses that are still open
2. AN is the proper place to mention it

pbp 02:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to link to a page with more information about backlogs. We occasionally get people posting "There's a terrible backlog! There are CSD candidates that are more than a few hours old! Aren't speedies supposed to be deleted within minutes of their tagging?!" A backlog of a few days at CFD is not a big deal; a backlog of a month is clearly undesirable. But the average user isn't going to know that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files

There is a backlog at Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files going back to last September.--Rockfang (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

IP Block exemption 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.

---

Could someone please comment on my request for an IP block exemption User talk:Slawekb. I'm getting the run-around on what should really be a very routine matter. (If my request is not routine, then an administrator needs to update the default edit notice that I see, since I've been following exactly the procedure outlined there.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a current request there. Nor do I see a history of unblock requests due to underlying IP blocks. I do see a semi-retired banner at the top. Am I missing something? ES&L 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 2 editors in good standing have asked you to reveal what block you're being affected by. Per Wikipedia:IP block exemption not all editors or administrators can see why you might be cought in an IP block. They're trying to help you by looking for quick-fail reasons that you might be denied prior to going to checkuser. I consider this a reasonable request, but your refusal to reveal that information cause for not granting the exemption. Also how is this account Slawekb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tied to Sławomir Biały (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and under what exemption are you claiming the ability to have multiple accounts? Hasteur (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The accounts are fully disclosed and seem all kosher to me. The older account hasn't even been used in like 6 months. I don't think that is at all relevant to the current request. On the matter of the request itself, I have now commented there. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The alternative account is fully disclosed, as snowolf indicates, for reasons specifically mentioned on my user page (essentially the diacritics make it typically easier to use the handle account). If I've violated any rules, I'm willing to be politely corrected on that point. :-) I will provide the IP information as requested, but I am bound to get caught in a similar dragnet again. This is all a bit of a hassle to put users who are in good standing through. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

But IPBE is rare ... and only given based on a number of criteria. I don't see where you meet the criteria ES&L 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If that's so (I'm not disagreeing, I don't know exactly how these things work), then the edit notice I'm seeing (and have seen on many other annoying occasions) reads (emphasis mine):

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.

You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from (redacted) has been blocked (disabled) by DeltaQuad for the following reason(s): Wikipedia Checkuser.svg CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse. If you get this message, please read the following information. Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block a range of IP addresses or an entire network, to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These "range blocks" can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not currently have a account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. Please use this form to request an account under your preferred username. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. If using the form, please refer to this block under "comments". If e-mailing, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): You may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not amend or remove this block without consulting a CheckUser. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

This block has been set to expire: 20:48, 23 February 2014.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.

Now, if there is some secret special sauce to getting these things taken care of, the edit notice really needs to say so. As far as I can tell, I have followed the instructions there. (I also don't see anything at WP:IPBE that suggests that I would not qualify, as this precisely describes my situation.) So, if IPBE aren't handed out to editors in good standing who happen to edit from dynamic IPs that often happen to be blocked, then the procedure needs to be clear and easy how to get unblocked. (I don't really know the difference between the different types of blocks, btw. All I know is that when I log in to Wikipedia from home, I find myself unable to edit with the above edit notice.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that you do not qualify for an IPBE, or that one may not be given. Only that it is given by checkusers after some research on their part, as no checkuser has commented as of yet, we can only defer to them. We merely offered alternative remedies for your previous situation that we, as administrators, could enact. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That does seem the be ES&L's suggestion to me, but I'm willing to wait for a CU to comment. In any case, the edit notice should probably be updated. It feels based on responses here and on my talk page like Im asking for the moon. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the case. Please, nobody grant IPBE until I check further. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've archived this section just so that it's easier for people to notice that they shouldn't do anything right this moment. I'm not trying to shut off discussion; please keep discussing below the box, and feel free to add text inside the box as well — I just want to ensure that NativeForeigner's request remain at the bottom of the highlighted area. NativeForeigner, please un-archive it as soon as you're done checking further. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

PS — my edit changed the header, and Writ Keeper had to put it back. I couldn't remember the right code, so I went to another closed section, the one on Jmh649, and copy/pasted things here. I thought I'd removed the new header, Coffee's closing message, etc., but apparently I didn't get quite all of it. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Still pending, but won't be for much longer. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Granted, based on the fact he was behind a hardblock. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Un-closed the discussion, since you've reported back. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2014 (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.

Help deleting an image

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.

---

For some reason I'm unable to delete this copyvio; the error message I receive is "Error deleting file: Could not create directory "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/o/4/j". Can someone else take a shot at it? Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually it appears I can no longer delete any images (I was working through the laundry list of copyvios here).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not the only person having trouble deleting images, [60]. Is this an overall technical issue? VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter just did it; I've no idea what the issue was. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I just have deleted the file, no problem. No idea about the technical stuff.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; the issue now appears to have sorted itself. Back to work everyone!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Just a note that the Tampa server is down, so there may be disturbances. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:40, 17 January 2014 (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.

Autoblock finder?

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:Jaqeli's seven-day block has expired, but he is now under an autoblock. To clear the autoblock, you need the number. Does anyone know of a working autoblock finder? The old finders seem to get the 'account expired' message when you try to use them, and I don't see any new ones at WP:LABS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Here you go! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:08, 17 January 2014 (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.

Would it be a good idea to better regulate or otherwise place sanctions on cryptocurrency-related articles?

There are dozens of electronic currencies in use these days, and many of them have communities that engage in coordinated efforts to promote their coin on Wikipedia and elsewhere in order to pump up the value of their investment. This is a topic that has generated many AfDs, as well: looking through the redlinks on the pre-deletion "List of cryptocurrencies" article, you'll see that many of them point to deleted articles. It's very common to see, in place of independent secondary sources, a reliance on less-reliable sources such as links to the bitcointalk forum, promotional websites and press releases, or raw-data utilities like "coinmarketcap," blockchain explorers, coin exchange websites used to back up WP:OR. I have often come across material that reads like an advertisement, and I've also seen a few instances of users making edits solely to plug their favorite coin, and/or to remove references to competing ones.

My point is that articles pertaining to cryptocurrency seem to invite problematic Wiki behavior. I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia policy or very well-versed in how these noticeboards work, but I feel like articles on cryptocurrencies, in general, could use some more well-defined notability guidelines to prevent protracted AfD battles, and it might help if measures were taken to help keep these articles neutral and to mitigate the amount of promotional activity and meatpuppetry that seems to take place within articles relating to this topic. It is not my intention to call for action on any of the examples I gave above, to single out any users in particular, or to take a particular stance for or against cryptocoins, I mostly just want to start a discussion about what can, or should be done to improve these types of articles.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to reading your comments. Breadblade (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the combination of internet-based commercial interests and strong ideological leanings associated with cryptocurrency means that this is a classic case of a problematic area for Wikipedia. However, we generally don't implement general restrictions until its clear that the standard admin responses aren't working or are being over-whelmed by problematic behaviour. To help this discussion, can you point to examples of unsuccessful admin responses, RfCs, unstoppable edit wars or sock puppetry, etc, concerning these articles which illustrate that broad problems aren't being properly addressed? Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The simple solution is to require solid independent sources: sources of the sort that a professional encyclopedia would use. Sources that are independent of their subjects chronologically as well as organically: discounting news sources that treat the cryptocurrency itself as a subject of news. No complaint about sources that publish news about the cryptocurrency (e.g. "The tripling elephant population prompted growth in the value of the cryptocurrency _____ today"), but when the cryptocurrency is itself the news, the source isn't independent. This will ensure that we're only covering cryptocurrencies that are established and capable of being documented beyond press releases and SEO techniques. It will ensure that we can write an encyclopedia article, rather than simply summarising what's been in the newspaper lately. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been following the topic closely and for long enough to find many big examples, but I do remember that the dogecoin AfD came pretty close to getting overwhelmed by meatpuppets, and that the highest valued currency unit page turned into some pro-/anti- bitcoin battleground at some point. Do the admin noticeboards have a searchable database? I could do some digging, if so. I think the biggest issues with this topic are more subtle: many of these articles have trouble with NPOV, sourcing is generally poor on average, and it's hard to determine notability of cryptocurrency articles based on the way many of these coins are covered in the media. Maybe this topic needs its own WikiProject to maintain some consistent standard of quality? That's just one possible suggestion, maybe someone more familiar with wikipedia policy or these articles might have a better idea. Breadblade (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I created Dogecoin when it was limited to the community of 4chan. It obviously had the resources to back it up being warranted as an article when it was nominated for deletion, but I never expected to see fallout upon the lines of DOXING (leaking personal info for anybody not familiar) nominators solely because they nominated an article for deletion and having people CALL the nominator via phone. I felt very bad and almost wanted the article deleted just so they would leave the nominator alone, but then when real legitimate opinions based on policy started to pour in, I felt assured they would leave him alone. Atomicthumbs never made another edit until January 9, 2014, which I'm assuming is because of that alone. Cryptocurrency certainly is a controversial subject, and that extremism is currently evident. I feel something needs to be done, but I honestly don't know how to proceed. Citation Needed | Talk 00:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would be greatly in favor of a sanction that all articles about cryptocurrencies be considered spam unless reliable secondary sources can be presented for them. We require secondary sources for notability, and all of the sources on the Dogecoin article — having been created chronologically in the vicinity of the cryptocurrency's creation — are primary sources. Established cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, will obviously have secondary sources, so this won't affect them. We can't simply decree this and mandate the deletion of articles on grounds such as this, but such a sanction would be comparatively easy to enforce at AFD: instruct a closing admin to discount all "keep" votes that don't seek to demonstrate the existence of reliable secondary sources, i.e. sources chronologically independent of the subject as well as being independent in every other way. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not. Automatically treating articles as spam is exactly what doesn't need to go on in Wikipedia, nd to some degree what has already been going on in the subject area. To discard keep votes that don't bring a source to the table is unilaterally bad, and is overly bitey in an area that has received a lot of attention on Wikipedia from other websites than Wikipedia. Give the articles a fair chance. Dogecoin was a joke at first but then actually started to get legitimate uses as businesses accepted them. KonveyorBelt 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's lots of agenda pushing from both directions, that has been going on long before the recent altcoin explosion. Bitcoin was a terrible article for a long time (not sure about now) because of it. Unfortunately List of cryptocurrencies was chopped and redirected at AfD, since its now-eliminated "big" list had seemed like a good place to mention currencies that met a basic standard of verifiability by independent sources, but didn't reach the higher standard of GNG required for a standalone article. So now we're in for more crap articles that we can't easily just redirect to list items. (I !voted keep at that afd and feel a bit regretful about not making this point more clearly, though it probably wouldn't have mattered).

  Anyway, this thread almost feels like canvassing for deletion supporters to find ways to game afd, which seems icky. We certainly shouldn't get to "instruct closing admins" to do anything different than follow normal afd practices (which include well-established ways of handling !votestacking situations). Ideally I'd want to retain some mention of coins that brought interesting innovations (ethereum was last week's hotness) while tossing the ones that were lookalike semi-scams, but there's not really any effective way do that, and I think our coverage of this topic is going to stay crap for a long time. I'm not that into this stuff myself but I have acquaintances who follow it closely, and they're always finding very interesting stuff in places that we can't really use (e.g. forum threads). 50.0.121.102 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong, I don't think the problem is that not enough cryptocurrency related articles are getting deleted. There are plenty of articles in this topic which meet the criteria for inclusion, but still need to be improved. Maybe the List of Cryptocurrencies in its new form can be updated with a section detailing coins that aren't notable enough for their own article, but present some new or interesting technical innovation. As it stands currently, we're more likely to keep an article about a media darling that changes some numbers around in the Litecoin or Bitcoin source code (Dogecoin, Coinye) than a more obscure coin that brings something new to the table technically. I don't follow this topic closely enough any examples of the latter, but I can see how that can be a problem. Breadblade (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let's also make this clear. Some articles look like shit, and it usually is a good reason to warrant deletion (this is AFTER you go on Google and find out that only forums and blogs talk about it, or if you just have a instinct). Some articles, like BitPay (which I just discovered) are also written horribly, but the difference is when you pull up a search, the sources are there and the article doesn't have to look like shit. The ones I've been nominating, are the first seneario but with usually only one or two worthwhile sources. Dogecoin has the luxury of originally being a gimmick coin getting attention and then after finding legitimate usages, obtain even more legitimate attention (I'm seeing this coin being accepted in STORES alongside Bitcoin, although that doesn't pertain at all). Coinye is purely a joke coin directed at a hip-hop artist, but it's also opened a large debate in the legal field about trademark/copyright infringement and cryptocurrency, and thus has also gotten much attention. Those are exceptions to the general trend because most of these altcoins only bring something technologically new but unknown mainstream to the table, but because they don't have an IT factor (mainstream attraction), they're lucky to get passing mentions and one or two good sources. Of course, we have exceptions to this as well. Primecoin? That should've been deleted because other than an MIT source, there was nothing backing it up, and I'm sure it would be if somebody nominated it again. That means we're left with Namecoin and Peercoin, which somehow have the sources to back themselves up, so obviously they're notable. What we need to coordinate improvement of these articles that DO make it? We need a WikiProject, like the other soul that brought it up. If nobody want's to create it, I'll do it when I have the time. Citation Needed | Talk 13:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think I'm generally in agreement with this. I'd be happy to help out with a WikiProject if we could get some more interested editors together. Breadblade (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In agreement as well. KonveyorBelt 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream closed

An arbitration case regarding Nightscream has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream's administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Abusive terms in 'Edit summary'

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 Wikipedia article Edu-Clubs was blanked on 3 Jan 2014 and was replaced by abusive terms; the derogatory comments was repeated in edit summary too. Same is the case with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel page. There too the edit summary includes the same comments Though the edit to the Edu-Clubs page was reverted immediately by some bot and the Wikipedia Club page by some users, the page history of both the pages displays the very same text in edit summary even now. It request the admins to hide the abusive edit summary in page history from both the pages. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2014 (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.

Lee arango me

There is some sort of situation with Lee arango me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user edits sporadically, making rambling blog-like edits in mainspace. Note also the responses on his (some edits are signed "Leonor") talkpage and in addition to the user page, this: User:Lee arango me/UserProfileIntro. I saw that he had not been welcomed, so left him a welcome template and a note, but he returned today with this edit. This edit on meta could be taken as a legal threat, but that is not how the person who responded took it. I am thinking there are competency issues, but language problems may be a factor; looking at global contributions, I do not see a wiki declared as the home wiki, and there are said to be edits on 4 but I can only see 3, so possibly all edits have been deleted on a native-language wiki? I'd appreciate assistance explaining things to this editor, perhaps in another language, because otherwise I think we may have to block him on competency grounds; the mainspace edits are disruptive.

In this edit the user claims to be " leonor arango disabled bipolar on chemo". The user is apparently female per (Redacted). Serious competence issues.--Auric talk 14:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't clicked :-( I'd seen a few of those statements in checking the user's contributions, but hadn't wanted to invade her privacy (sorry, I had the sex of the name wrong). I think I'm still in the same place with regards to en.wikipedia though - can anyone help get through to her, or do we really have to block her, which makes me sad but I brought this here because it looks as if we do have to. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I had a poke around and at a guess the editor is a native speaker of either portuguese or spanish. Are there any spanish/portuguese speaking admins around? Blackmane (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, our main concern ought to be with the project and I do not see how this user contributes anything. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy but if we just block them based on the usual alphabet soup without any sort of explanation, or at least an attempt at one, we might see a future disgruntled return and be fighting future fires that could otherwise have been dealt with by a softer touch. Blackmane (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting a comment here to forestall archiving. The editor edits only sporadically and so I do not really expect a response from her here, but I did word my notification as simply as possible in case she would want to comment. Someone else has also left a comment on her talk page now offering Wikipedia-related assistance should she want it. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

query only

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 an administrator supposed to block IPs for reverting edits made by that same admin even where it is not really obvious that "vandalism" is the reasoning for such edits, but "vandalism" is given as the reason for such a block? ? This is a hypothetical query only, but I seem to possibly have noticed its occurrence. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the content of the edit and if the IP (and range) has been blocked/banned via SPI etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

For the hypothetical query only, has the "54" series IP range been caught in such a web? Would changing, say, "colour" to "color" count as vandalism? Or changing date formats be "vandalism"? Reverting an edit made by the same admin who blocks the person for vandalism and then protects the page as an admin? Would any of these ipso facto be "improper" as a hypothetical query? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that changing "Colour" to "Color" could be vandalism but it certainly could be disruptive editing, i.e. if the article was in British English and the IP had been warned previously that this was so and they should not change it. Ditto the date formats. I think a bit more context is required. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Suppose for the sake of this hypothetical that an admin was an editor on an article, and reverted an entirely proper and accurate edit on (say) the number of goals scored by a football player with the edit summary "vandal" and then blocked the IP who had made an accurate edit for "vandalism" using his admin powers and then also protected the page with the inaccurate information which the admin had edited himself? What would your position be on such a hypothetical case? Collect (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Time for the fishing expedition to finish. Get on with something useful. Or be less pathetically hypothetical and get on with life. (Oh, and see the instructions at Template:Infobox football biography if you're actually attempting something constructive here). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)An interesting response to a hypothetical query. Suppose I changed "football" to "baseball" or "basketball" -- would that have posed less of a problem? I do wonder why you call me "pathetic" though. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you contribute something positive here, not just drama, but I can't quite see it. Maybe someone else can fill me in. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

My position would be, tell us the article name so we can see for ourself, since it's fairly obvious this isn't hypothetical. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Bingo, and that is why this is pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, I've found that sometimes people present a hypothetical in order to extract their preferred answer before the actual situation is revealed because they fear the revelation of the details will change the answer they receive. I am not accusing you of this, I'm presenting you a reason why editors might be reluctant to reply to your hypothetical scenario before learning the details. I suggest that the most efficient way to resolve whatever matter you have observed is for you to present the full details here. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the scenario I presented in the query is insufficient to give opinions on? What further hypothetical information might you require? I tried to be thorough to make the hypothetical pretty clear, but would be glad to append to it if it would help get further views and opinions, of course. I read the Nightscream ArbCom case and decision, and think it might be of interest in general for the case I present in this query. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Drama-mongery. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Taking the original question in good faith - I think it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to block any editor who is engaging in clear vandalism, even one who has reverted the same admin on that article. That admin would not be INVOLVED as they are simply doing what any other admin would have done. GiantSnowman 20:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And in the more specific hypothetical which I was asked to give where the edit was clearly not vandalism? Thank you for your answer, of course. Collect (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Then the admin would be considered INVOLVED and should not act. GiantSnowman 20:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of problematic and disruptive behaviors that might justify such a block beyond simple vandalism, and the block may be appropriate despite the admin's participation in the article. Perhaps the block is appropriate but the reason provided in the block log is not precisely correct. Without details, I can only speculate. Gamaliel (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there not an exception to the "involved admin" policy which says something to the effect that if the edit made by the supposedly involved admin was one that any reasonable admin would have made in any case, then the "involvement" ir irrelevant? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in third paragraph of WP:INVOLVED. Of course, as it involves judgement and evaluation of the specific context of the action, I don't see any value in discussing hypothetical what-ifs. If there's a concern about an admin action, the observing editor should discuss on the admin's talk page and then post here with diffs if the situation remains unresolved. NE Ent 22:56, 19 January 2014 (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.

Help needed

Hello,

Can we please have some help at Template:DYK. It has a severe backlog and we need Prep Area 4 moved into a queue, as we appear getting close to a deadline and we need admin approval. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made the necessary updates. I'm not familiar with process however, so please double check my edits. -- John Reaves 21:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@John Reaves: -- Good, but we need it in queue 2, since that's the next one to go onto the main page and it's empty, so just fix that and then it'll be set. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed it. -- John Reaves 22:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I need someone to fix the credits. Can another experienced admins check out the hooks for that? Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 22:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Closers for Pending Changes RfC

Please see the discussion at WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014#Closers. It's been difficult getting closers for some of these thornier RfCs. We're hoping that one or more admins (preferably) will indicate their interest in closing this one, well before the 30 days run. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Expressed my interest to be one of a triumvirate there ES&L 13:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Laura Hale topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: There is consensus that there is a pattern of significant translation errors (not merely "typos") in articles that User:LauraHale has written on the basis of Spanish-language sources. The proposal to ban LauraHale from using Spanish-language sources did not receive a consensus, but there is general support in this discussion for an arrangement that would ensure that her translations don't reach main space until they have been validated by someone with appropriate knowledge of Spanish and English. After User:Tony1 proposed a 90-day trial in which "any article text she creates and/or edits that is derived from Spanish-language sources should be worked on first in a sandbox, and be transferred into mainspace only when endorsed as acceptable" by someone with appropriate language skills, LauraHale said on this page that she would "accept a six month requirement that before I move any article to the main space that heavily relies on Spanish language sources, that it be vetted by a native language Spanish speaker who has read all the sources and checked the accuracy of my text against the article, and then have that person comment on the draft article talk page before moving it." There was only limited discussion of this proposal, with some support and most objections focused on skepticism about the feasibility of getting people to do the requested reviews. On LauraHale's talk page, User:Raystorm has graciously indicated a willingness to oversee LauraHale's Spanish work. Seeing that Raystorm's multilingual abilities are demonstrated by work on several versions of Wikipedia and this user has a strong interest in sport-related topics, this arrangement appears to be a very satisfactory plan for addressing the concerns that led to this discussion. Accordingly, for the next 6 months (until July 30, 2014), LauraHale will place any articles based on translations from Spanish in a sandbox and will not move them to main space until Raystorm (or another user with similar language skills) has indicated that the translations are satisfactory. LauraHale is reminded that if problems continue to be detected during this period, this plan will need to be revisited -- and is likely to be replaced by a more severe restriction. It is to be hoped that by the end of this period, either LauraHale's Spanish will have improved to the point that she no longer needs this assistance, or she will recognize the need to continue the arrangement voluntarily. --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:LauraHale from using any Spanish-language sources, since these are her most frequently used sources, but she doesn't understand them and frequently introduces completely incorrect "facts" into articles. This is always a problem, but certainly from someone with a semi-official function wrt Spanish articles.

From her user page: "I have been a Wikimedian in Residence for the Spanish Paralympic Committee since late June 2013."

She recently came back to my attention in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 99#Laura Hale revisited from early December 2013, where she had an article lined up for the main page claiming that a Spanish Paralympian had competed at the 1996 Paralympics, which was completely false. Her defense there was:

"I admit that I made a mistake because of a bad Google translation. I have tried to be as diligent as possible to insure I make very few mistakes of this kind. Problems of potentially misunderstanding a source is why we have a review process though, to try to correct any unintentional insertions of non-factual information. It's also why DYK requires articles to be fully sourced."

Yesterday, she moved Rafael Botello Jimenez to the main namespace, but again, this article contains blatant misinformation which seems to be due to poorly (machine-)translated Spanish sources. In this case, the article claims that "In 2010, he competed in the New York City Marathon, finishing in a time of 1:47.39, making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race.[3]" This is rather awkwardly phrased, but stringly gives the impression that he was the first Spanish wheelchaor competitor ever to finish the NY marathon, which is clearly wrong, considering that e.g. in 2007 another Spanish competitor finished ahead of him[61]. The article also claims that "He was the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to go sub 1:15 on in the marathon and sub 10:15 in the 5,000 meters.[1]", but the source makes it clear that he went sub 1 hour 25 (not 15) minutes on the marathon, and it would be nice if different notation was used for hour:minutes and minutes:seconds, not as it is done here.

Another example, also from yesterday: Aitor Oroza Flores: the article claims that he "works as a mechanic, cook and lecturer.[2]", which seems rather intriguing. In reality, his hobbies are "Aficiones: Lectura, mecánica y cocina.", so he doesn't work as a lecturer but likes reading...

We shouldn't let an editor who has so much trouble understanding even the most basic Spanish texts work on BLPs of Spanish people, and even less so as a "Wikimedian in Residence" for such topics. Considering that the problems continue after even the rather blatant incident from last month, and seem to be widespread and serious (the Aitor Oroza Flores example above is a good illustration of this), protecting her, ourselves, and the people involved from further problems and a more massive cleanup operation than we probably already need to undertake, needs to be our priority. A topic ban seems to be the most efficient way to achieve this. Fram (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You'd need more evidence of consistent multiple errors in her articles than that Fram.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Dr Blofeld, it seems reasonable to me that once we know someone doesn't adequately speak the language of the sources they're using, and therefore has been introducing errors into articles based on poor translation, we should ask them to stop trying to use sources in that language. Once or twice is enough for that.

However, what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this. I don't see one on her talk page, at least. Fram, have you or anyone else approached Laura and said, "Hey, it looks like your Spanish isn't really good enough to be doing this sort of sourcing; could you please avoid using Spanish-language sources"? Has she refused to do so? Or have we jumped right from "I recognize a problem in someone else" to "proposing topic ban" without attempting "asking them to stop"? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe such conversation is contained in the first reference provided by Fram. (Actually, I see a consensus for DYK topic ban there, does someone know why the topic ban was not implemented?)--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The DYK talk thread appears to be about topic-banning Laura from DYK. It mentions the Spanish issues, but only in the context of "...and here's why she shouldn't be allowed to submit DYKs," and no one in that thread is really addressing whether Laura should stop using Spanish sources. I guess my point is that no one has presented Laura with "Your Spanish skills aren't up to the job, we need you to stop using Spanish sources for now, in any article," and it seems weird to escalate to a topic ban without seeing if she'll just, you know, stop. That said, however, I do think Laura needs to stop attempting to use Spanish sources, based on what I'm seeing. I'm just wondering whether a topic ban is necessary to have that happen (and maybe it is, but I'd like to see this involve a conversation with Laura about this particular issue, so we can determine that). Hopefully now that this thread is here, she'll be willing to weigh in and engage with the community's concerns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I have not contacted her on her talk page, no. I would think that someone who has her position, and has a problem like the one from the DYK discussion from last month, would recognise that she needs to take a lot more care with the sources she uses. Considering that with her position as Wikimedian in residence and her topics, she basically can't agree to not using Spanish sources, but seeing that on the other hand she doesn't seem capable to do so with sufficient accuracy at all, I thought that having an outside, binding discussion would be more logical and fruitful. Anyway, other articles and DYKs seem to have sufficient problems as well, looking at rejected recent DYKS like Template:Did you know nominations/María Carmen Rubio and Template:Did you know nominations/David Mouriz Dopico. Fram (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I echo what User:Fluffernutter said. If someone (doesn't matter if it's Jimbo or an IP editor) heavily relies on Google Translate or other online translation service to translate an entire sentence, they probably don't have a clue in that language to judge whether the translated sentence is factually correct. Now back to Laura. Fram provided evidence of three articles that contained wrong information as a result of improper translation. Others above have brought the previous DYK topic ban attempt into the discussion. From a chronological perspective, we see that only the first article made its way to DYK and the two subsequent articles did not. So I don't think we should tie this with the DYK topic ban. However, since this topic ban proposal is about "using any Spanish-language sources", I see the merit in it. But if it's enacted, how can we enforce it? Laura could have used other languages (e.g. Italian, Portuguese) to circumvent this topic ban and we will be back here very shortly. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that she only speaks English, so topic-ban for using any machine translations seems in principle sensible to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ban? When the obvious solution is to run it by a competent translator? We are still tying to help each other out, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• " I would think that someone who has her position..." Wait, what has her employment got to do with this? If she wasn't a Wikimedian in Residence, would you still be making this proposal? If so, why is it relevant? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not someone making a one-off or limited series of articles based on Spanish sources, this is someone who does this in a semi-offocial position on a serial basis and can be expected to continue doing these articles. Her position is important background, also indicating that she is not some newbie. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the original mistake (which has been discussed before), you've given three examples here:

1. The first is mildly badly written English ("In 2010 ... making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race" implies the 2010 race, not every year's race.) It's not a translation problem; the problem is merely the slightly ambiguous English.
2. The second looks just as likely, in fact far more likely, to be a typo rather than anything to do with Google translate. (Does Google translate turn "25" into "15"?) The 1 and 2 keys are next to each other on most keyboards.
3. The third is a bit more uncertain, but could just as well be a careless hurried manual translation (see false friend) rather than a Google translate problem.

Your evidence doesn't prove your thesis, in fact it doesn't even come close. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• • The topic ban is not based on her using machine translations, human translations or baboon translations, the tpic ban is because she consistently uses bad translations. I really don't care where she get these, the "Google translation" comes from her own admission, not from some research on what produced these results. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I really do think that this should have been discussed with Laura before it was brought here, As a Wikimedian in Residence in Australia she did some excellent work. She is now living in Spain, and presumably learning Spanish. A quiet talk with her would probably result in getting a Spanish friend to check her translations. All this drama could have been avoided. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • She had a completely incorrect DYK due to a bad translation, which was discussed with her at WT:DYK, but which didn't change anything. Yes, all this drama could have been avoided if she had made some effort instead of continuing with more of the same... Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a very ill judged discussion. Lets just imagine that these mistakes had come from poorly misunderstood sources in English. They might be misunderstood facts, poorly written English or because it is unusual English. Would we ban that editor from using English sources? We are constantly having to make value judgements about sources and facts and we make mistakes. I'm pleased to see that someone spotted an error. They should fix it and move on. If there is a problem then it doesnt require us to vote on someones first guess at a solution to the problem. Other solutions exist ... and actually the problem is not going to cause the sky to fall. Victuallers (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, what on earth is this doing on an Administrator noticeboard. Fram should have discussed this on Laura's user page. That would be much closer to our standard approaches with problematic user behaviour. As for Laura's English, no it's not perfect (nor is mine), but that's the easiest thing in the world for any of us to fix. And why a topic ban? She obviously has good knowledge of the area involved, and access to good sources. The aim here should be to simply fix the translation problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
      • And how would you suggest we do this? How do you fix a translation problem? Victuallers as well says "other solutions exist", but offers none. This is not about making "value judgments", when you claim that someone works as a lecturer because you can't understand Spanish and the source says that someone has reading as a hobby, then you just aren't fit to use Spanish sources (and no, the Spanish source was not written poorly or in unusual Spanish; a sports journalist writing solely about Spanish artists should know the word "aficionado", and here the word was "Aficiones", which is very basic Spanish anyay) and when someone has had serious problems in that regard recently, but continues to create dozens of articles based on nothing but Spanish and Catalan sources, then something needs to be done. Fram (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Discuss it with her? Offer to help? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Serious lack of WP:AGF from the originators of this AN thread, from what I'm seeing. Orderinchaos 08:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
        • It just seems hard to believe we are bereft of knowledge of Spanish, and no one will help vet before publication here when she has a problem on BLP's. [62] [63] For example, I have asked knowledgeable wikipedians to vet non-English sources, and they seem to be quite helpful people. Doesn't your proposal seem more than a little cruel for someone working in Spain?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
          • • • Cruel? It's her choice to continue producing clearly deficient articles on BLPs by using completely incorrect translations (no matter how they are produced), even after the result of such actions have been pointed out. In the above linked DYK discussion from one month ago, she stated "My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. [...] I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask." If all these assurances she gave are not sufficient, then what more can we ask? She is producing English language articles for the Spanish Paralympic Committee, who probably trust her work blindly (considering that she is the Wikimedian in Residence). Isn't it cruel towards the Committee to let her continue to produce such basic errors? We know there are problems, her assurances from a month ago seem to be worthless, so the next step is to force a change. Fram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                • • But, no the first step and restriction is not a total ban. 'Hi Laura. I notice you are still having problems with BLP Spanish translations: ... . Especially because these are BLPs, we should have these articles and sources vetted by people more knowledgeable in Spanish before publication (See [64][65]) What do you say?' The Committee probably believes we are helpful to each other and interested in their work that is notable, so it would be good to foster that belief, since we regularly say we produce this work in a "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • Considering the years of problems with this editor, as evidenced by the comments from others here as well, this is hardly "the first step". And I have no interest in playing games to hide the incompetence (or whatever reason applies) of some editor; yes, we are interested in their work and the notable athletes, and for that reason we feel that it is very problematic that the dedicated editor for these is making such a mess of it, and continues doing so after many earlier problems. That is the message the Committee should get, not some "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". Fram (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                      • Games? Cooperation is not a game, here. What years of problems with Spanish translations? You appear to admit that some of the work is serviceable and you say below that there is virtually no one else who is interested in writing for Wikipedia about the Committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                        • Cooperation is a two-way street though. And it looks as if you prefer incorrect articles to no articles? I'ld rather not have an article in an encyclopedia, than an article with such blatantly incorrect information. And if I were the Committee, I certainly wouldn't want to have a Wikimedian in Residence who contributes such incorrect and poor articles. Fram (talk)
                          • I am seriously concerned with the fact that we seem to have some real problems with Laura's editing, she is aware of the discussion, but has chosen not to respond. I have left another message at her talk page, inviting he either here or to any other place at her choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • • What? You have not read what I wrote (I said approach with a vetting plan). If cooperation is a street, this board is telling the OP that they have not driven on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                • I do not understand what you are talking about. What cooperation? What board? Anyway she has responded, hopefully we can resolve the issue at least temporarily.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                  • • I assumed you wrote, "cooperation is a two way street", (is that someone else's unsigned comment?) so that is the cooperation I am talking about. As for board, I meant this comment notice board, AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                      • No, I did not write that, but anyway, thanks, I now understand what you mean. My communication with Laura is in the meanwhile going nowhere. If someone feels they can help I would welcome any help there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                        • My apologies, my signature was missing there, I have now added it. Sorry for the confusion. Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's rather poor form to start a thread here without a serious attempt to discuss the matter with Laura privately: it's not like she's difficult to contact. I've always found her to be receptive to comments, including in relation to errors in her DYK nominations. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed with Nick and others - a topic ban should be the last stage of a process that has involved failed previous attempts to resolve any perceived problems and serial offending. I'm not seeing any evidence of any previous attempts at all - there's been a race on to find the biggest hammer to crack the nut, which is an abuse of the process being engaged. If you have a problem, talk to the editor about it. And the basis is weak too - many new articles on Wikipedia, even by experienced editors, are weak, contain misunderstandings of sources etc... then the Wikipedia community fixes them up. Orderinchaos 08:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• I see her Australian colleagues are rushing to her defence. No, Laura Hale has consistently demonstrated a cavalier attitude to the use of sources; that is why she's been effectively chased out of Australian paralympic topics, where like a rapid bulldozer she created hundreds of article stubs that were marked by the poor use of sources and consequent factual errors—not to mention the display of a talent for appallingly bad prose. Something more substantive needs to be done to stop damage to the project. There are so many examples, but here is one where the BLP subject came along and corrected bloopers herself. You wonder whether Hale actually reads the sources she quotes.

  "what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this"—The problem is that anyone who approaches Hale concerning her substandard editorial practices is likely to be slapped in the face. That's what happened to me. So my advice is: don't dare to. Tony (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Firstly, I'm not a "colleague", nor are most here - I write on political and geographic topics, as a cursory inspection of my edits would quickly demonstrate. And I think it's a little misleading to not note your own mile-wide conflict of interest with regard to Laura - it'd be fair to say you don't like her very much for reasons that have nothing to do with WP and everything to do with the internal politics of a national chapter neither of you are part of any more. Orderinchaos 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the less I believe that a topic ban from using Spanish sources is really sufficient. Looking at random articles she created the past few months, I stumbled upon Cesar Neira Perez. It contains the sentence "He was the number one cyclists to finish in the Road Trial race." What is intended is that he won the gold medal at the Individual time trial, i.e. at the Cycling at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's road time trial, where he is still a redlink BTW (the article she created should be at Cesar Neira). "Contrarreloj en Carretera" can literally be translated as "Trial in Road" or "Road Trial", but certainly in a cycling, sporting context, it is the road time trial that is intended. And "the number one cyclists to finish"? Well, that sentence seems to be a stock phrase, looking at Juan José Méndez Fernández: "He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race." "He was the number two cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race. He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC4 race." But there are equally incorrect variations, like in Roberto Alcaide García: "He was the first racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race." "He was the second racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race. He was the third racer to finish in the Road Trial LC2 race." Perhaps he really was the third racer to finish, but that is totally unimportant. If he finished third though, and won a bronze medal, then perhaps that should be written a bit more clearly? I don't know whether LauraHale doesn't understand sports or doesn't copyedit her articles, but really, this kind of crap should not be created by someone with her credentials.

Two days ago, she added "[...]he was a participant in the awarding of the Medals of Asturias component, [...]". What meant is that he was awarded a Medal of Asturias. In the same series of edits[66], she incorrectly removed the 1992 participation and medals this athlete won. Editors which are supposed to be knowledgeable in the field, but start removing correct and fundamental information (Paralympics participation and medals are quite essential info for a Paralympic athlete), make Wikipedia worse, not better, with little chance of being swiftly being corrected as they are implicitly trusted, and working in a field with very few editors. Fram (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not understanding Spanish, or sports, or both? Juan Emilio Gutiérrez Berenguel: "He also participated in road events, finishing one event in eleventh place in a thirteen deep with a time of 1:42.51.[4][11]" This rather vague sentence refers to the Cycling at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Men's road race C1–3, where he finished 11th in the time given (note that he still is a redlink in that article). So where does the "thirteen deep" come from. Well the actual field had 40 cyclists, of which 26 finished, but the source LauraHale used, [67], states "En la clase C3, Juan Emilio Gutiérrez fue undécimo (1:42.51), seguido de Juan José Méndez (1:43.32) y Maurice Eckard (1:43.32)." Logically, if you finish in 11th place, and there are two people behind you, then the field was 13 deep, no? Well, no, not if the source really means "followed by two other Spaniards (given) among a number of riders from other countries (not interesting to our readers, so not given)".

Her articles are filled with these errors, uninformative sentences, oft-repeated phrases, misconceptions, and so on, and I don't know what the best solution is to deal with it. Wikipedia:Competence is required comes to mind. With an editor with hundreds of DYKs and so on, it is not as if they are still learning the requirements. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If what you say is true you'd need to provide sufficient evidence of mass errors in everything she creates. She's created a staggering number of articles on Spanish paralympians and I'd need to see examples of multiple serious errors in articles to warrant a ban. At the end of the day she's a volunteer here and doesn't have to bother. I'm curious Fram, do you suspect she's being paid to do this? This really doesn't seem to be the right place to make such a proposal and as you can see most of the editors who've turned up are Australian who know Laura and it's hardly going to attract a neutral investigation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course she doesn't have to bother, that's hardly the point. I have no idea if she is paid or not, that's not really essential (although I would consider it a waste of money if she was); I notice loads of problems (probably not in every article, but in way too many), and no signs of improvement or even recognition of the problems. She has now responded on her talk page concerning this[68], claiming e.g. that "The three examples Fram provided were not about translation errors. One was a typographical error. One was contorting the English language to avoid close paraphrasing from a translation. The third was a misunderstanding of a topic, not an issue of translation." The third she refers to is putting "works as a lecturer" instead of "hobby is reading"; I fail to see how this "misundestanding of a topic" can be anything but an issue of translation, but feel free to provide an explanation that is not less charitable than "translation issue" (I don't think she doesn't know the difference between work and hobbies, and I also don't believe that she was deliberately including false information here, so which explanations remain possible?). Fram (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Dr. Blofeld: I think you are going too far in your defence of LauraHale. You are acting ignobly to the extent of casting aspersions on the motives of Fram even when the proof of Laura's incompetence is for all to see. Yes, we should stick up for fellow DYK contributors, but don't let blind loyalty obstruct the real goal of improving WP. Languages are full of intricacies, and many do not become apparent until you become an advanced user who understands the culture as well as the words themselves. LH is so obviously out of her depth with Spanish. She does not understand it properly to make good sense of the story, which explains why this is a recurring problem. I think you, of all people, should be having private words in her ear to get her to amend her ways before the community does with blunt force. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How am I going too far in defending Laura??? I think my response has been fairly neutral. All I know is that Fram for a very long time has not approved of Laura and he felt that way long before she even began working on Spanish articles, it stems from her earliest Australian sportspeople articles. If every article Laura produces does contain major translation errors then this is a clear problem and needs to be solved. I've simply said that I really want to see evidence that she's consistently makes translation errors. A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary. Rather I'd urge her to slow down and get a friend in Spain or on here to proof read them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to talk to her at her talk page, but I got the impression she believes the percentage of her errors is low. Then I randomly took one article she created (the last one) and found four significant errors (which I corrected). So I believe this is a problem, I believe a topic ban is not the best solution (since the problem is not restricted to translation errors), and I do not see from her side any willingness to slow done. May be you can help on her talk page to take the matter further. Note that I am perfectly neutral, I do not have any issues with her, I do knot know who is her employer and I do not want to know, and our previous interaction was reasonably pleasant.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary." Not "out of several thousand", but out of the handful she created most recently. And I don't think claiming that someone works as a lecturer when what is said is that his hobby is reading is a "minor issue". And you don't need to show that every article contains such errors, if the frequency is sufficiently high then that is enough of a problem. Anyway, I have since provided a fair number of examples indicating that while the problem is not restricted to translation errors, it is very widespread nevertheless. Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, so long as you tried to speak to her and are convinced that she is genuinely causing a major problem with every article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, someone doesn't need to be "causing a major problem with every article" to get a restriction. There are major problems with too many articles, but that doesn't mean that every article is problematic (nearly all have more minor problems though). As for speaking with her, in the past I had a discussion with her about incorrectly using Spanish sources (on the Flat Bastion Road article), I tried to keep her out of DYKs because she had too many problems there, and there was the DYK discussion of last month regarding a major hook mistake due to an incorrect translation. I didn't have a further discussion on her talk page, having received the impression from those discussions that that would not have been welcomed or fruitful at all. Before the note about the December DYK discussion, the last time I went to her talk page was to inform her of the deletion discussion for Template:2012 Australian Paralympic Ski Team, which she had created. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So, is it your proposal now that Laura Hale be banned from Wikipedia for incompetence? Since your first proposal is failing, is it wise to go long? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I am further researching her contributions, and encounter further major issues, some directly related to the original post, some more tangential but not less problematic. Any thoughts on how to resolve this are welcome, but I no longer think that simply restricting her use of Spanish source will be sufficient (nor the help of editors who have a better knowledge of Spanish and are willing to help). It seems to be a more general problem with her editing, as seen in the above examples and in the comments of people who noticed the same when she was working on articles for Australian athletes. Mentoring may be a possibility. Requiring her to go through AfC, which was recently imposed on another long-term contributor, is also possible. Letting her continue as before is also a possibility, but I fail to see why nyone would support that. Fram (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Has there been an RFC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Has there been any somewhat successful RfC/U on any well-established editor in the last few years? Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That probably depends on what one means by success: 1)Identifying the problems? 2) having a good discussion about it? 3) leading to mutual understanding? 4)leading to resolution? or 5) leading to a basis for further action? Some have probably had some success in some of those areas but not in others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoever suggested that Laura didn't aware of this or calling it "serious lack of AGF" should give their head a little shake. During the discussion in DYK last month, it already mentioned Spanish issue. That's sufficient to say that she's been given notice (or warning, depending on how you see it) to be careful with it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I see merit in an RfC/U, mainly because discussions like this end up in a wall of text which discourages passers-by. I have noticed her name pop up in a few discussions like this, and I think it is worth a well-structured RfC with all the evidence in one place (sorry Fram). I have not looked into her editing myself as have been busy elsewhere but this seems to be popping up frequently enough it needs some sort of more formal resolution one way or the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I looked into her last created page (Jan 4), and reported the results at her talk page. On top of the awkward prose (which I may be wrong about as a non-native English speaker) I found at least four issues, some of which might originate from a bad translation, and others presumably from elsewhere. Based on this analysis, (i) I believe we have indeed a problem here; (ii) a topic ban as suggested is not an appropriate solution, and I do not knwo what would be appropriate. Possibly RFC/U is for now the best course of action. There we can discuss problems, and, hopefully together with Laura, find the best way to address them. If somebody things that one randomly taken article for whatever reason is not representative please let me know, I can do a couple of more (it took me about an hour to handle this article).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with Admin noticeboards, and why I am very reluctant to bring any problem to them. Anyone with any negative feelings about an editor, from any time in the history of Wikipedia, is free to leap in with irrelevant negative bullshit that shouldn't but does build an even bigger negative image of the accused for the case at hand. Those who join this massive pile-on of mud suffer no negative consequences themselves. The real case gets buried in crap. Wikipedia's justice systems stink! HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) This thread is too involved for me to jump in at this point, but you need to seriously tone it down, HiLo48. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? Is what I said not true? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a systematic problem with the way the dramaboards work. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• This needs to end (support ban). There have been enough language and other problems with articles User:LauraHale has been writing on Spanish paralympians. Fram drafted the original complaint in November 2012 that didn't fly; she was reprimanded at DYK in early December 2013 for her now infamous "Did you know... that 2006 Spanish Paralympic alpine skier Daniel Caverzaschi was ranked 20th in the world in wheelchair tennis in October 2013?". At that time she offered her excuses and promised to be more vigilant. Her skills in Spanish are clearly not up to it, and I had suggested she voluntarily stop using machine translations. She said that she had a pool of Spanish-speakers she could call upon, but I don't see any efficacy in that from the results demonstrated hereinabove. I also see no embarrassment, contrition, nor sense that she admits to anything but a bit of carelessness. She has so far kept to her talk page, it seems that she is deliberately ducking this discussion although she was duly warned, hoping that others might think that she hasn't been adequately warned and that it will go away if she keeps a lower profile. Whilst she admits to some basic human failings, she casts Fram as the bogeyman, probably hoping that the messenger would get shot instead of her.

  Fram was persistently on the back of another editor whom I (and many others) thought was close to God. They spotted the early warning signs, but it was only much later and after escalating problems that the community later realised the legitimacy of Fram's concerns and banned/blocked said editor. Although I would like to see enthusiastic editors get the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that the assumption of goodwill is wearing mighty thin. IMHO, Fram is again spot on. I hope that the community realises sooner, rather than later, that Laura is becoming a menace and needs to immediately stop, or be stopped from, using sources in a language that she does not have full mastery of. It's time for a zero tolerance approach to Laura's continued incompetence and blame game. Let it be made clear at the same time that if her "typos" (particularly when numbers get mistyped, transposed or otherwise mis-stated) are a matter of continuing concern with her work, that the community will ban her from using a keyboard to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't know if she realises she may lose her job if she gets banned from WP for any length of time, but so be it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is that what this is about? Targeting her employment? I did wonder above why Fram brought that into it. I'm sure something similar came up in a past arbcom case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's not "targeting her employment". You got it the other way around, as she seems to be using Wikipedia to further her own ends. But note that she's not doing her "employers" any favours either with the very blatant errors she is committing. Oh, I wonder how they would react if they knew the truth... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• That seems like a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any evidence for it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in dishing out any dirt. Go look elsewhere. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose from editor 9,600 mi / 15,400 km from Australia. As previously noted, concerns should be discussed with editors before raising them on AN or ANI. NE Ent 03:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is good evidence on both sides, but not good enough to merit a topic ban, and yes, I looked at the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, part of along-term pattern. Graham87 08:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - this is a long-term issue with this user not confined to DYK, but which also extends to GAC and FAC. I cannot in good conscience oppose this topic-ban when this user continuously flouts editorial process and shows a lack of discipline in their editing. Quality not quantity. When a user focuses on the creation of poorly-reviewed, poorly-sourced and poorly-written content, there exists a problem. James ^{(T • C)} • 9:27pm • 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per James above. Andreas JN466 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Compelling evidence that suggests long-term poor QA & disregard for community concerns. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The above anonymous IP seems dubious...New anonynympus IP account that from his summary comments HERE seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Yes. Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps? Mercy11 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Since Laura has declined to participate in this thread or in further conversation about her sourcing/article creation habits, I support this proposal with a wrinkled nose, though I prefer Tony's "Formal Proposal" below as a way to handle Spanish issues, and I'm beginning to wonder whether some sort of overarching article creation probation may be needed as well based on evidence people are surfacing here. Per the evidence given by other users, it seems that the trouble is more in Laura's article-creation QA than in her Spanish skills in particular, but it currently seems to be leaking out mostly in Spanish-related articles. Topic-banning Laura entirely from Spanish-source-using is therefore using a hammer that's a bit too blunt for my taste, but I'd take this option over no restriction at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It’s the job of the DYK team to check the quality of the work that is published. This witch-hunt is trying to mask their own incompetence. See also WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not solely about DYKs though, many of her articles are never submitted for DYK. And DYK is not a substitute for fat checking, editors are responsible for the content they produce, blaming the errors on the reviewers is ignoring the initial problem completely. Fram (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • "Fat-checking"? Haha. Brilliant. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Premature. It looks far too much like a grudge match from those who oppose her work for other reasons - merely identifying possibly valid issues isn't enough excuse to ignore cornerstone principles and jump straight to the Wikilawyering. I'm not endorsing the content produced in saying this - Laura clearly needs to work on some things, but I believe reasonably communicating with her on these and perhaps having someone who's stronger in Spanish-English translation being available for her to speak to would likely solve the problems. If it doesn't, well, that's a matter for the future. I just think as someone that's been around a while (coming up to my 8-year anniversary) that Wikipedia has tended in a more Wiki-litigious and punitive direction when people are trying to contribute positively, it's a lot tougher to be a newbie or developing editor now than when I joined. Orderinchaos 08:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • But LauraHale clearly isn't a "newbie or developing editor" anymore. Fram (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'm also in favour of the ban per what I said earlier. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per what I and others have said earlier. Moreover, appears resolved below (per Hale and The Rambling Man cmmts). On other issues: 1) RfC/U has been noted as an option, not overly blunt and ill-fitting topic bans. 2) It was wise of Hale not to respond earlier, while the OP was going '... and another thing ... and another thing ... and another thing'; 3) If you have not even tried to talk to someone about a ban proposal against them before coming to AN, don't bring it here; 4) Punishing the User for past Australian sins is not a good or even decent basis for this ban; 5) Hale should act upon some of the sound advice she is getting in the area of QA -- most people do not like to clean-up, when the maker does not appear to care. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - idea of editing encyclopedia using sources in language that you don't understand is already quite surreal on its own, doing so in BLPs just makes it much worse. Frankly its even questionable should she be editing BLPs at all as thinking that google translate is sufficient indicates quite serious attitude problem.--Staberinde (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ridiculous proposal for a topic ban. Such a wide-ranging topic ban is a serious and major penalty for a content creator, and should require - at the very least - prior discussion of the problem on the target's talk page. None of that happened here. What should happen is that, if the complainants are really seriously concerned about Laura's editing, not just following up past disputes and the like, they should take the time to open an RfC/U so that this can be discussed properly. The unwillingness to do that (there's been plenty of opportunity now) is an indication of how bad faith this is. Oh, and the "hey perhaps she could get fired from her job" people need some blocks laying down on them. There's already been an arbcom case on the last editor that used that tactic against Laura, it's not rocket science. (I did give them an opportunity to retract - above.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - come on people, there are a lot of people who are contributing here with a limited knowledge of English, but are still able to contribute. If we start topic banning editors from using sources in languages that people perceive them to not be able to understand, then we are going to massively limit our non-native English content's creation and maintenance. Although there is evidence here that Laura cannot understand Spanish, and she possibly should avoid using those sources, to enact this topic ban would be a bad precedent. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

More evidence

Yesterday, I noted how she removed correct pertinent information in these edits[69]: the article stated correctly that José Manuel González had participated and won medals in the 1992 Paralympics, but LauraHale removed this for unknown reasons.

Picking other articles she created on Spanish Paralympians randomly, I came across two table tennis players, Tomas Pinas and Álvaro Valera. The sentence "He played table tennis at the 2004 Summer Paralympics, 2008 Summer Paralympics, 2012 Summer Paralympics and the 2012 Summer Paralympics." (with the repeat of the 2012 Games) appeared in both articles, which caught my eye. Looking further, it appears quite strongly that she copied the (at first glance basically correct, despite two different birthdates) Pinas article to create the Valera article, and couldn't be bothered to do even the most basic checks. The result is that the Valera article starts with "Alvaro Valera Muñoz-Vargas (born October 16, 1982 in Seville) is a Class 3 table tennis athlete from Spain." (Pinas is a Class-3 athlete, Valera is a Class-6 to Class-8 athlete), and that his main achievements include "In 2008, he finished third in the Class 3 singles table tennis game. In 2008, he finished third in the Class 7 men's singles.", which would be a unique combination. Obviously, the first bronze medal was Pinas', not Valera's.

To add insult to injury, by copying the Pinas article, who started participating in 2004, she somehow missed that Valera also competed in the 2000 Paralympics, where he won a gold medal. So she wrote an article where she categorized a Paralympian in the wrong category, awarded him the wrong medal, and omitted the most important of his participations and medals. Fram (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying to find a source that says he competed in 1992 paralympics - not used to looking for stuff like this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The most authoritative, [70], search for surname:Gonzalez and first name:Jose Manuel in "Athlete search", and you get all the results. Here he is listed as one of seven Spanish athletes to compete in the 1992 and 2012 Paralympics. This page from the Asturian Radio and Television lists him as participating in 1992, 1996, and so on. Seems pretty conclusive to me. Not really a "typo or other minor problem"... Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Take a look at these five pages:

• Antonio Delgado Palomo: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 11:19, 30 October 2013‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• Julio Gutierrez García: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:14, 30 October 2013‎‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• Eloy Guerrero Asensio: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:16, 30 October 2013‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• José Santos Poyatos: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 16:39, 30 October 2013‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• Francisco Benitez: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 10:36, 6 November 2013): 10 years old at the time of his Paralympics

Every single article created by LauraHale needs thorough fact checking for even the most basic facts. These are not occasional mistakes; this is a systematic lack of applying the minimal care that can be expected before posting something to the mainspace. We all make mistakes, but I have rarely encountered someone who does this so frequently and fundamentally, and gets away with it. Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Made any attempt to fix those pages? No, didn't think so. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And your point is...? Are you going to check and correct all her pages? Have you checked or corrected even one of them? I have, but I'm not going to do all of them, and certainly not if nothing is done to prevent a further influx of similar problems. Have you actually looked at WP:SOFIXIT before linking to it? The second section is WP:RECKLESS. Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I did [71]. What is your point please?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is that you'd rather sit here and bitch about it, rather than do anything. Carry on. With doing nothing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to do something about it. You don't. You prefer people creating hundreds articles riddled with errors (and worse, removing correct basic information from articles), and other editors cleaning up after them time and time again? That seems a rather unproductive way to proceed. Fram (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you're not doing anything. Just blaming others and not doing any real work. Like most fireguards on here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The next one I worked on [72] was almost fine, just some mess with the references (which is unfortunately now a common sight even for English language sources and otherwise good and productive editors).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal

In view of the ongoing damage to the project being caused by Laura Hale's insufficient knowledge of the Spanish language and her poor editorial practices, any article text she creates and/or edits that is derived from Spanish-language sources should be worked on first in a sandbox, and be transferred into mainspace only when endorsed as acceptable by at least one editor from each of the following classes—those with sufficient skills in:

1. both Spanish and English, to review and endorse each of her translated texts; and
2. English, to review the quality of the prose.

This proposal, which I suggest should be a 90-day trial, would involve Laura Hale's informing AN of the editors who have agreed to do this, and a dated signature on the sandbox talkpage declaring that a version is acceptable for transfer to mainspace in each respect (1 and 2 above). Her progress would be reviewed at AN after the 90-day period.

The alternative would be to ban her use of any non-English-language sources. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, This is actually a second formal proposal. The first one, which seems not to enjoy consensus, was the one started by Fram above "I would like to propose..." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have previously mentioned on numerous occasions at DYK that I would be glad to check any DYK using Spanish-language sources. Having said that, I am not available to work for Laura Hale or to check her DYKs; considering the extremely poor quality of her work and the long-standing problems, I don't understand why she hasn't been topic banned from DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would support Tony's proposal as a first choice iff we or she can line up editors before the close of this thread to be Laura's "designated checkers". Passing a sanction that says she has to have her work evaluated, without having anyone on hand who says they'll evaluate it, is setting us up for Laura either never being able to create an article again (due to lack of reviewers), or deciding to sneak articles in the backdoor just to see them published (due to impatience). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I also have reservations about setting up a complex machinery to follow one rogue editor's work. And although I would have supported simply banning her from using any non-English source in articles she contributes to, it seems that the problems are not so much her ability to grasp Spanish, but more down to her general inability to contribute responsibly and with due care. But something needs to be done. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems excessive given the relatively small scale of the problem being described. Also seems to set up an unnecessary hierarchy. Orderinchaos 08:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not juwt ban her from translating? Or from misleading translations? Not to be ultratechy, but is using a type of source really a topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Echoing Ohconfucius and SandyGeorgia above. Andreas JN466 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by LauraHale

I apologize for not responding earlier. As someone who has created over 1,200 articles,[73], I am sure that there are a number of typos and some other minor problems with my work. Perfection is not required to contribute to Wikipedia. The issue of potential problems was first brought to my attention in early December 2013, and I responded on December 4 [74][75] to affirm that I would be more careful with my use of Spanish sources to try to insure better understanding of the source material. Most of the examples brought up here have pre-dated this committment, and I do not think there has been any demonstration of systematic problems since that commitment. I have repeatedly and privately asked for people to assist me with translations since that time on IRC, via e-mail and in person. I stand by that commitment from early December to make sure that my understanding of Spanish sources is more accurate and I am daily working to improve my own Spanish speaking skills. I would be more than happy to accept a six month requirement that before I move any article to the main space that heavily relies on Spanish language sources, that it be vetted by a native language Spanish speaker who has read all the sources and checked the accuracy of my text against the article, and then have that person comment on the draft article talk page before moving it. --LauraHale (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good enough. Move along here, nothing else to see. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Typos and other minor problems"? Have you looked at the evidence (e.g. in the section "more evidence")? And these are not from your full list of 1,200 articles, these are all from articles from the last few months, including multiple serious issues within the last dozen articles you created. Downplaying the percenatge of problems and the seriousness of them in one go gives the strong impression that you don't realize (or don't want to admit) what the actual issues are. Perhaps you can show for the next six months that you can create accurate articleson English-language sources, before we let you back near sourcs in other languages? Fram (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Waa-waa-waaa, this poridge is too hot. Give it a rest. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Any reason why you are trying to turn this into a childish and uncivil discussion? If you can't behave like an adult, go find some other playground. Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. You should know better. Again, hiding behind your own failures rather than fixing the articles in question. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in whether or not there should be formal bans or any other action, and I have no doubt that @LauraHale: is a valuable contributor and asset to the project; also if the issue is in hand as of 4 December 2013 than that's great. Just to say, though, that having read the above I would like to add my support to the request that Laura should be a bit more careful about making sure facts are correct, and not being flippant or dismissive when concerns are raised. The lack of necessity for WP:PERFECTION is of course an important part of the project, allowing for people who aren't brilliant writers or who just have sketchy information on a subject, but it is certainly not a licence to indiscriminately write factually incorrect material in articles in the hope that someone else will clean them up afterwards. The case of the five paralympians mentioned above seems a classic example of this. They all show the same date of birth, which I assume is not correct for all of them, a situation which could have easily been avoided with more rigorous checking of the text before or after hitting the save button. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want further examples of translation problems (and general sloppy editing) which happened since 4 December, take a look at these three, made within the space of twenty minutes on 24 December 2013: [76], [77], and [78]. "the Championship of Spain by Autonomous Open Paralympic Swimming"? Let's see, that very strangely named tournament is the "Campeonato de España Open por Autonomías de Natación Paralímpica"[79], which even Google Translate translates better than you do ("Open Championship of Spain by autonomous Paralympic Swimming"). What is meant is the "Open Paralympic Swimming Championship of Spain by Autonomous Community" ("Autonomías" being the Autonomous communities of Spain). Not a major problem, but not really an indication that anything has improved since 4 December. Oh, and of course the inevitable copy-paste error needs to be included; Alejandro Sanchez Palomero: "In 2013, he competed in the Championship of Spain by Autonomous Open Paralympic Swimming where she represented the Balearic Islands." If you change one "she" to a "he" in a sentence, it's best to change the other one as well, to avoid strange results. Fram (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we've established that Laura makes many errors and needs to take more care before moving articles to the mainspace, but correct me if I'm wrong, above she has volunteered to a six-month embargo on moving any article translated from Spanish to the mainspace before being vetted by a native Spanish language editor. That seems like a good solution without dragging up more and more of this (which I'm not sure is benefitting anyone). For what it's worth, I'm happy to volunteer to vet these from an English-speaking perspective to knock Fram's most recent concern on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A six-month ban from DYK nomination is also in order, until we can be sure that her editorial practices have improved significantly. Tony (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well presumably that isn't necessary if the new articles she nominates have to be double-vetted? And User:Lugnuts does make a valid point, if these DYKs are getting to the mainpage, it's an indictment of the DYK review process as much as Laura's editing skills. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with such a page-vetting by one or two people for the next months. I'm just worried by her apparent dismissal of the number and seriousness of the problems her articles have. But I assume that either she will improve her work, or the "vetters" will make it clear what is wrong with it, and that in six months time we will have a much better view of the situation and way forward. Thank you for the offer to check the articles. Fram (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, who is Lugnuts? Grow up. On a more serious note, it's possible that Spanish Paralympic Committee might know of this very public thread. We should proceed with that in mind. Tony (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

He happens to be the most productive film editor on wikipedia Tony, and in my experience of him he generally has a fair outlook on most things.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

More to the point - who the hell are you? Have you fixed any of these articles, or are you too busy back-slapping your lynch-mob buddies? It's not the former, if you're struggling with that one. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Lugnuts, what do you think about [80]? Recent LauraHale article, not yet introduced in this discussion, again contains rather blatant errors. I corrected this one (well, I removed the most obvious errors, can't promise that there aren't any others left), but I'm really not going to spend dozens (hundreds?) of hours checking and correcting all the others, and certainly not when nothing is done to stop the influx of new ones at the same time. Any constructive comments about this whole situation? Fram (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I say, holy shit! Fram actually fixed something. Wow. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I was busy adding content. I see you've still doing nothing about the Francisco Benitez article you linked to earlier. I'm sure another witch-hunt got in the way. Oh well. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesus wept. The evidence is overwhelming, as they say... Somebody put us out of misery, please. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Why in this whole thread has the fact that these are BLPs not even entered the discussion? Did that policy expire in 2013? Ultra Venia (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It also seems like someone at the WMF needs a smack to back of their head for officially supporting (paying?) someone (cf. "Wikimedian in Residence" status) to write about topics that normally require competence in a foreign language, when said competence is clearly lacking. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Someone not using his real name: Whoa, wait. What did we do? We're not paying her. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't. But some thinking on and clarification of the status of Wikipedians/Wikimedians in Residence may be useful? At the moment, it seems like these positions are mostly self-declared, organised between the institution and the editor, without any intervention, help, support, or "seal of approval" from the WMF. But the title "Wikipedian in Residence", and the pages about it on Wikimedia and Wikipedia, gives the implicit impression that these are "official", WMF-approved positions, where some vetting of the candidates or soemthing similar is done. As far as I know, this isn't true at all. Creating some clear separation between WMF and the Residents may be useful (or alternatively doing some vetting and restricting the position/title to those who the WMF have approved). Fram (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The press, where it comments on the title at all, describes (recent example) the title thus; "Wikipedian is the term used for the people who write and edit the pages of the site". Doesn't seem particularly misleading to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And the same article indicates that it (not the "Wikipedian", but the "Wikipedian in Residence") is done in collaboration with Wikimedia UK, making it look like an official position, not something an editor does on his own... Fram (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

...but not an official position of the WMF. While the WMF do a lot of things (we're even responsible for Anne Murray) your complaint is not with the WMF, it's with the chapters - that is, you probably want to be objecting at the organisations that have Wikipedians in Residence, as opposed to the ones that don't. It's not the Foundation's job to resolve problems caused by individual chapters. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ironholds, I didn't claim that it is an official position of the WMF, I said that they are "without any intervention, help, support, or "seal of approval" from the WMF.", but that the title "gives the implicit impression that these are "official", WMF-approved positions", aided by pages like [81] or [82], the latter of which makes it clear that "Wikipedian in Residence" is a title that entitles you for "requests for resources" more than regular users apparently. The WMF is sending out a very unclear message, and I asked for clarification, not for intervention. Fram (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Have no position on LauraHale, or Spanish Paralympic medalists, or <grin> intrinsicly-blameworthy entities... but do have a position on whether the WMF is properly involved here or not, as an implicit supporter of Wikipedian-in-Residence folks. Wikipedia is a trademark of the foundation; it is the global brand, which represents the efforts of all concerned. The chapters do not have carte blanche to use the trademark as they see fit (cf Wikipedia: The Shaving Cream). And moreover, the WMF has the explicit legal requirement to exercise quality control over the use of their legally-owned trademarks (held in trust for DahCommuhnity™). Prolly the noticeboards is not the place for a discussion of how much control the WMF folks ought exercise over the chapters, or over individual wikipedians, that wish to call themselves or their activities something official-sounding. The appellation of wikipedian *is* at present extremely broad, and ought be, methinks. But the WMF does give the implicit seal of approval to all uses of the WMF trademarks, and I'd like to see a bit more thought put into global-branding-issues like this. See meta:Trademark_policy for the proposed 2014 rulz. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The murky status of WiR has been further discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 154#Wikimedian in Residence. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Independently of the topic ban question, I'd urge Laura to slow down and edit more carefully. I always cringe when I hear someone created 1200 articles, since it sounds like a trainwreck in progress. Wikipedia has too much history of whackamole bot rampages, copyvio sprees affecting 1000's of articles, or in this case bad translations, for "so-and-so created 1200 articles" to produce any good feelings from where I sit. The use of automated translation tools is another scary sign. It's much better to write 12 really good articles, or even just 1, than 1200 that are automatically suspect just by their quantity. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• "I'd urge Laura to slow down and edit more carefully... ...affecting 1000's of articles". There's no apostrophe on 1000s. I urge you slow down and edit more carefully. I have 16,000+ page creations to my name - happy for you to check every single one if you like. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:10, 21 January 2014 (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.

Community sanctions and 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.

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis

I recently closed the above per the request at the WP:AN/RFC page.

User:Baseball_Bugs chose to evade the topic ban by posting to the reference desk talk page. And so subsequent to that I have blocked him for 24 hours for ban evasion.

I'm posting here for WP:3PO on both the close and the block.

As a quick note (I need to go deal with RL, but should be back in several hours), in my estimation, while option 1 clearly had overwhelming consensus, when readin the entire discussion, option 2 had consensus as well, though perhaps not as "overwhelming" as option 1. That doesn't make it any less "consensus".

Thank you for taking the time to look this over - jc37 20:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I had looked at the number of outright opposes on choice 2, and suggest that there was no actual "clear consensus" there - and that if one reduces the weight given to strongly involved editors (as best practice indicates), "no consensus" or even "no" is the result. One ought not give full weight to the involved editors, and the idea that an edit by Bugs questioning the close is the impetus for "instant block" is not altogether wise. Far better if you had another admin give a block, but since the only "bad edit" by Bugs was one questioning the "consensus" you saw, it looks like you let yourself get far too close to the issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am very confused by this. There is an overwhelming consensus for an interaction ban, whether counting all votes or only argued votes. Yet this is reported as a modest consensus. And the topic ban was strongly opposed, at least 2-to-1, whether one counts unargued votes, or votes with comments. This is clear from people opposing any sanctions as draconian and unwarranted, people supporting only sanction 1, and people outright opposing sanction 2. These votes all give reasons against sanction 2. User APL's vote is particularly instructional. With a cursory view, he supported all sanctions, then reversed his support for sanction 2 and commented on his reason for doing so. His crossing out his support for 2 may be unclear unless you enlarge the text and read the matter he appended to the end of his comment. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jc37, you're probably aware that your call of "consensus" for Option 2 (=that all three editors be topic banned from the Reference Desk) is not self-evidently clear. I'm not saying your call is wrong, but it's certainly debatable. What Baseball Bugs did, once you had notified him about your reading of consensus, was to object to your call concerning Option 2. He posted his objection in three places in rapid succession: on your page,[83] on the Reference desk talkpage immediately below, and with reference to, your "Notice concerning community sanctions",[84], and on his own page.[85] And for the post on the Reference desk talkpage you have blocked him for 24 hours, for violating his "Reference desk topic ban." I don't think that's a good block. If I'd been you, I'd have overlooked that particular post. I think Baseball Bugs should be unblocked right now, perhaps with a reminder to completely stay off the Reference desk and its talkpage until Jc37's reading of the consensus has been reviewed here.

I don't quite understand your summary of your finding about Option 2, "Has consensus (noting that indefinite is not interminable - especially as there is a criteria for appeal).[86] What criterion for appeal is that? (No, I haven't re-read the entire thread, it's a monster, and really depressing.) Do you mean there's a venue for appeal of those topic bans? Where? It seems to me that BB did appeal his topic ban with his three posts, and that all three of them were in reasonable places for the purpose. Blocking him for using the RD talkpage for such a purpose seems bureaucratic to me. Any more cumbersome type of appeal (and, as I say, I don't even know where it ought to be posted, and perhaps BB doesn't either) would obviously be a bit pointless for a 24-hour block. Come on, unblock him, please. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

Unblock pending review of close. NE Ent 21:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ent, unblock pending review. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

[ec with BMK, whose comment strengthens my first point] In response to what the last several people have said, I'll be unblocking momentarily, as Bugs didn't violate the ban's prohibitions of editing the Reference Desk or of interacting with the other two. When a topic ban is imposed, it either covers a specific set of pages ("You may not edit page A, page B, page C...") or prohibits the editor from editing pages on the topic and from discussing that topic elsewhere (e.g. "You may not edit anything related to the topic of weather"), aside from processes such as block/ban appeals; moreover, we always specify when someone's prohibited from discussing the ban itself. You closed as successful a proposal that they be "topic-banned from the Reference Desk, indefinitely"; the proposal said nothing about the RD talk page, and your closure included nothing additional. When people are banned from editing specific pages, they are not banned from editing those pages' talk unless the ban specifically says so. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My intention proposing the community sanctions was RD and its talk pages, but if that was ambiguous I support a discussion to determine what people thought it meant. And, separately, I am also surprised by the option 2 consensus, though I think it was a good idea. We're sort of vague on how we "count" !votes when someone Supports 1 and says nothing explicitly about 2 and 3, for example. Are those assumed neutral on 2 and 3, or oppose on 2 and 3, or what? I have tended to assume conservatively (an implicit no). All of this said, as the proposer, I think others should be primary on the review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think its quite clear that a commenter who supports option #1 is implicitly saying that they do not support the other options - or else why mention only one of the options? Still, I'm glad my !vote said explicitly "Support #1 only", and I advise all commenters in all future !votes anywhere on Wikipedia to do the same, to avoid exactly this kind of thing. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Following myself up, but... Thank you, Jc37 for having spent the time to review and close it. That was necessary and is much appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking. I will stay totally away from the ref desk until this case is fully settled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few thoughts:
  • If there was consensus for Option 2, I really think it is clear that the talk page and all sub-pages of the RD are included, per very clear wording at WP:Topic ban. I don't think a whole new discussion is needed to arrive at that fact.
  • The thing is, I have a very hard time seeing a consensus for Option 2. Well, no, that's too gently worded. I do not think there was a consensus for Option 2. I cringe at the idea of yet another discussion about this (the equivalent, I guess, of a DRV), so I'd ask @Jc37:, please review the comments in the archived ANI discussion and consider changing the close for Option 2. Otherwise, I feel a DRV-ish discussion somewhere (here, I suppose) would be reasonable.
  • I despise myself already for saying this, and will surely burn in CREEP hell for it, but... instead of relying on common sense, we should probably come up with some kind of standard way for someone subject to a topic ban or interaction ban to (a) appeal the ban, and (b) report a violation of the interaction ban by the other party. I already see TRM flirting with a violation on his user page, and BB's complaint about that is being reverted as a violation of the IB as well.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We got that (appeals; appeals go here WP:AN or WP:AC. NE Ent 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for unblocking, Nyttend. I suppose it does need to be clarified whether or not people thought it was GWH's intent to include the RD talkpage in the topic ban. (Groan… these discussions get more fine-drawn and labyrinthine by the day. Yes, you will burn in CREEP hell, Floquenbeam.) But I don't think it matters as far as the 24-hour block of Bugs is concerned. For my part, I assumed that Jc37's topic ban did cover the RD talkpage, but thought the block was bad all the same. See my post above. Collect's comment seems very reasonable to me, though I will surely burn in letting-the-side-down hell for saying such a thing. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

• jc37's declaration of the ban wasn't very good; the closing admin should make a clear, explicit statement of the terms and scope of the ban on the user's talk page, not a reference to "#2" on that page. Bureaucracy no, clarity yes. NE Ent 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to think consensus requires a sort of quorum where a certain portion of those weighing in have to weigh in on a specific issue in question for there to be any valid determination of consensus on that issue. Here you did not have a decent quorum to justify any finding of consensus with regards to the topic ban. When so few people commenting on a series of proposed sanctions mention a specific one, their silence should be considered a strong sign of a sanction not having sufficient support to pass. Even then, I feel there was more than enough opposition to the sanction expressed that any finding of consensus for the sanction would be completely nonsensical. Clearly the interaction ban had consensus, but that is the only consensus for a sanction I saw in that discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, rather than get lost in the threading above, I'll try to respond here. I'm hoping to avoid tl;dr, but we'll see : )

First thank you to those of you who did WP:AGF, and were requesting clarification.

I've responded to Medeis's request for clarification on their talk page, and I think it should answer much of what I see above concerning the closure. And as for the block, please see User talk:Nyttend#Note about unblock.

That said, I think I should reiterate something: When saying something has consensus, I was presuming that all would understand that that means that it has consensus to be enacted. I am rather surprised that it is suggested that could be interpreted in any other way and thus engender actual confusion. And second, I'd like to respectfully request that you each please re-read WP:BAN. The policy and practices you're looking for are there as far as I can tell. I wasn't aware that I needed to re-summarise WP:BAN in a close, but I'll think about considering that in the future.

And finally, to try to be as clear as possible. If some truly uninvolved editor feels that they now wish to close the discussion, please feel free. You (completely uninvolved editor) are welcome to revert the close partially, fully, or fabricate completely out of whole cloth. One of the benefits of being uninvolved, is that I really don't care that much. My care is only concerning the encyclopedia in this case. And I daresay none would argue that the was not consensus that what the commenters clearly saw as disruption at the reference desk pages needed to stop. But who knows, I also thought that the rest of the close was fairly obvious. And in that at least I was apparently mistaken, if only having that impression from reading the above. - jc37 07:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think from looking at the discussion (and noting I was involved), that saying there was a consensus for option #2 was what Sir Humphrey might have described as a "courageous" decision. With that said, Baseball Bugs' raising the stakes by posting on the ref desk talkpage concerning the ban, when there are plenty of less drama-prone ways to do it, was certainly not a smooth move either. Vigourous troutings all around are called for, I think. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

• So, how do we--how do I--proceed on this? I think it's clear from the comments above that a finding of consensus for option two is unsupported. Jc37 has explained that he did not take into account votes that supported only option one as implicitly opposing option 2. But even then, and looking only at votes where justifying comments were given, the total of votes opposed to any sanctions: 6 and votes opposed to sanction two or in favor of only sanction one: 11 far outweigh the total of votes in favor of sanction two: 8.

Again, I would draw attention to comments such as APL's "(Edit: Looking more closely, I notice that Medeis makes a significant number of apparently useful contributions to the Language desk. So I've struck my support for #2.) APL (talk)" in response to Doc9871's suggestion that criticisms should be based on diffs. Indeed, the lack of rationale for sanction two and evidence to back it up is striking. There's the question of what harm this topic ban prevents. The ref desk is mentioned here only because it was the venue of TRM's name-calling disputes with me and Bugs. An interaction ban solves that problem. A topic ban seems only punitive in this context.

At this point I feel like a defendant left sitting at the bench while the judge and lawyers are out chatting in the hall. I ask that if someone here has the ability to reverse the judgment of consensus on sanction two in regards to not only myself, but Bugs and The Rambling Man as well, that they please do so. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No one's commented on Medeis' quite reasonable request for the past six hours since he posted it. I think it would be good, given the comments above, for the proposal to be re-closed with only Option #1, the IBAN between BB, Medeis and TRM, being the only accepted part of GWH's overall proposal. Jc37 said the response was sufficient to implement that, but his implementation of Option #2 has met with considerable dissension, and Option #3 is a non-starter. So... will a non-involved admin please close this with Option #1, the mutual IBAN between the parties implemented, or does a non-admin have to jump in and do the job and cause all sorts of chaos in the process? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: In case it wasn't noticed, I've attempted to clarify the close after reading comments here, and a discussion at User talk:Nyttend. Please see also User:Medeis's talk page, and User:Baseball Bugs's talk page (history as it's been blanked) and User:The Rambling Man's talk page as well. - jc37 07:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've missed it, but I don't believe any of these comments addresses the question of Option #2, whch was closed as having a consensus, but about which the commentators I am aware of have said that there is no actual consensus for. Did I miss something? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• A reason it's important for an admin notifying an editor of ban to conditions is that WP:: pages are not static -- if an editor is WP:IBANned, and WP:IBAN is the updated to reflect a new community consensus, it would not be a worthwhile use of resources to wikilawyer over whether the terms at time of imposition applied, or whether the current terms of the WP: page would. A declaration of terms on the user page is just simpler. NE Ent 11:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, if this interaction ban (option 1) has been enforced, why is one of those banned allowed to now post here, once again commenting on my behaviour, in direct contravention of the interaction ban ("These bans include article, talk, wikipedia, and user space, without exception. No mention of the others or their actions shall be permitted")? See "the venue of TRM's name-calling disputes " above. This is a violation of the ban (that everyone seemed to agree upon). Or does the ban no longer apply in certain circumstances? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a proper venue, with a discussion started by the closer of the discussion, Jc37 - thus it is proper for anyone to weigh in on the correctness of the close. If people were banned from such a discussion, we would have a lovely catch-22 situation. Meanwhile, your forumshopping to Jc37 seeking to have one party blocked for posting at what likely is a proper venue is weird, and as being in an improper venue is more likely to be a violation. And the "clarification" was posted after the post about which you complain in any case (Jc37 posted it at 20:09 16 Jan, notifying Medeis at 20:16 on 16 Jan while the post you cavil about was at 19:34 on 16 Jan -- making it quite unlikely that the first poster had already seen the later post) Tachyons do not exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So, to clarify, this venue is fine to continue discussing each other's behaviour, as per above? I asked jc37 to enforce the sanctions he had imposed, what's wrong with that? Moreover, this was with regard to proposal 1 which has not been argued against by anyone. The clarification was only regarding proposal 2. Are you saying the leave to appeal clause allows all editors in question to continue to debate other editor's behaviour? It's unclear to me. If so, then I'd like to provide more evidence as to why proposal 2 has been correctly enacted. By the way, there is no Catch 22, we just have to wait the minimum time in each proposal before we can appeal. Otherwise what is the point of that clause as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort -- the clarification that the ban applied to all pages was made after Medeis' post, therefore it would be a catch-22 to sanction her for what would normally have been accepted practice -- that the noticeboard on which the admin who closed the case specifically asked for input would normally be a place to give such input. Sanctioning people for something they were not notified of until after they posted would not be quite cricket. You, on the other hand, not only posted here but also at the admin's talk page in a wonderful example of WP:FORUMSHOPPING seeking to have Medeis sanctioned for something he could not have known about sans tachyon technology, and you iterate it now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

what? The clarification on the sanctions applied to 2 only. Therefore there should be no discussions of each other's behaviour per the unchanged proposal 1. No time travel require for that. Are you suggesting I am allowed to discuss the other two's behaviour here with regard to proposal 2? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The clarification effectively applied to the entire closure - as it is in the clarification that "all pages" is given, and that was after the initial posts here. Meanwhile I fear that you seem to be WP:Wikilawyering in a losing cause. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear you have realised your error. The clarification on no way had any effect on proposal 1. Which is the clause violated above. Your time machine will have to wait. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec x3) I don't know if I would call it forum shopping. TRM asked me (as closer) for clarification, and then asked me presumably as one of many admins to look over the behaviour. I gave my opinion, but also suggested he was welcome to ask another admin. And he brought his concerns to the administrators' noticeboard, which is, in my estimation, probably the best venue for such a request for review.

As I noted on his talk page, from my perspective (and also because I was considering the time frames involved as well), I was willing to let Medeis's comments concerning TRM above "slide" for now as they were mostly a request to review the close. But TRM is right I think that even this page should not be used as a way to violate the interaction ban with each other. But it's possibly the only venue that a request concerning another's behaviour may be made, I suppose, if kept as neutral as possible, and keeping WP:BOOMERANG in mind of course. This sounds perfectly in line with WP:BANEX. That said, I obviously welcome others' thoughts on this. - jc37 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I suggest Jc37 "unclose" the sanction discussion, as it might be considered wheel-warring for any other admin to simply undertake a review sua sponte of the close. The "extra" edit by TRM on your UT page was [87] and was not the one you appear to refer to -- it is the latter at 8:31 17 Jan which is "forumshopping" as it occurred well after discussion here and appears on its face to be a request for you to sanction an editor. Again -- please unclose the sanction result so that a fully uninvolved admin may weight consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I welcome your evidence diffs that I am WP:INVOLVED in any way with the discussion I closed.

That the close may not have been clear as it should have been, I won't argue. But I think you'll have a rather difficult time proving I was "involved" in this in any way.

Beyond that, it is closed and clarified. And further, if the community feels that one or more of the editors should no longer be page banned, it is simple enough to immediately appeal the page ban. But I leave that to others' discretion. - jc37 15:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! I did not call you WP:INVOLVED with regard to anyone at all, nor do I think any fair reading of my post should arouse such umbrage. I did suggest that you might now be an eensy weensy bit defensive about what appears to just about everyone else here to have been a "blown call." Where only a minority of the !votes were favouring "option 2" it is difficult to assert that it had "consensus" alas. And I was only suggesting that you consider unclosing the case in order to prevent what might end up as a long discussion about what a "consensus" is and what a "supervote" is. Cheers. So here it is:

Proposed

That an independent administrator re-examine the finding at [88] that "option 2" has a clear consensus for adoption in the TRM/BB/M AN/I discussion.

• Support Collect (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support NE Ent 23:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think a community consensus will be overturned by a local consensus of 4 editors voting, including at least 2 of whom participated in the discussion in question, and you, Collect, who, after I started this thread to review the block and close, decided to request that I start such a thread (here).

That aside, the editor was unblocked, and following discussion here and at User talk:Nyttend, I even apologised for the block (here). So I'm not certain what "unbrage" is supposed to have been "aroused".

You keep using phrasing like "totally uninvolved" and "independant", which suggests to me that you consider me WP:INVOLVED (or at least are trying to indicate that by inference), when in my estimation it merely sounds to me like you just want a close you don't like to be overturned.

Honestly, I think this is all moot anyway. As I mentioned above, at this point, any of the three editors are welcome to appeal to the community to remove the page ban if they wish, at their discretion, and if the community feels that one or more of the editors should no longer be page banned, it is simple enough to find out through such an appeal. - jc37 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all -- I suspect that others will "sign on" to the proposal. Second, you are actually beginning to sound like "IDONTWANTTOHEARTHAT" in your tone here. I stated above that I never said you were WP:INVOLVED which you seem to wave as an accusation in every post you can at this point. Look at what the other admins stated above and tell me how many said in their posts that your "clear consensus" was either "clear" or a "consensus" <g>. And yes -- this is a reasonable noticeboard for this purpose. Your adamantine posts do not impress me at this point, just as your hair-trigger block which no one supported did not impress me. I admit I am hard to impress -- I have been online for over thirty years now, most of it as a contract holder for an ISP with responsibility for several hundred sysops. And I would note that, aside from you, no one here seems to oppose having a fair independent review of the close. Cheers -- have a cup of tea and simmer down, please. Collect (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Big balls, forum shopping, tea for three, time machines, when will it stop Collect? There's a sore point and a complex here, and this isn't the forum for it. You asked for your re-run, live and deal with the disinterest. Continually insinuating that jc37 is somehow "involved" is beyond the pale. Go harvest some opinion elsewhere lest this become a terrible embarrassment for you. Oh, and should I be allowed the honour of !voting in your latest game, I'd go for "oppose", I'm happy to be banned from interaction and the reference desks. I think it's all fully justified. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

HooHaa -- your impressive wit is boggling. I posted to Jc37 before I went back to look at WP:AN if you care to look at the chronology -- so much of your repartee here is not worth tuppence. This is the proper forum -- so your stuff about "forum shopping" is inane at best. And again I NEVER SAID JC37 WAS WP:INVOLVED so the big lie form of discussion is not worth iteration by you. In fact, it makes me thing that your "topic ban" might be insufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Listen, getting all angry and bold about it won't help you know. And all your "in fact"s are fascinating, but considering your track record, you're hardly the "go-to guy" for good behaviour, eh?! Calm down, take a couple of gallons of tea, remove the tachyons from your mind, chill out and start acting rationally. Cheers! (and judging by all your previous edits here, you'll need the last word, so please, after you....) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Gosh -- what erudition! BTW, you are officially banned now from my user talk page. With warmest regards - Collect (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Genuinely, my heart breaks. I was never there. Get over yourself. Last word? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jc37, you started this thread yourself as a request for 3PO on your closure (and a block which was reversed). In response there seem to be unanimous agreement that there was no consensus in favor of sanction two. At least no one here has supported that exists what you are now calling a "community" consensus for that finding. Now you say I can file an appeal if I want. But I already have filed an appeal immediately above at 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC). User:Collect kindly put this in a formal structure, and once again formal consensus seems to be that part two of the finding needs revisiting. Please let that process play out. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. What collect proposed is not an appeal of the existing page ban. But that aside, I would suggest that if you would like to post an appeal, you may want to start a separate thread for clarity. If you would like help with the formatting, please feel free to let me know. - jc37 04:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued

User:Jc37, please could you point out where TRM (or others) used the mis-spelling "independant"? I've not see this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Me too. I hate to make such errors. User:Demiurge1000, please could you point out where User:jc37 has suggested that I (TRM) used this spelling? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

[89] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh thank God and all his tachyons, I never made such an error. A gallon of tea for you and a teensy weensy cake to suit. (and the insinuation that jc37 is not "independent" is unacceptable without proof from the esteemed "Collect"). The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(To Demiurge1000) - In the diff you linked to I did indeed misspell independent, my apologies for that oversight (I'll leave the misspelling for clarity, now that it's been commented on.)

But the "you" in the comments was clearly referring to User:Collect, who in the above discussion did use the words "totally uninvolved" and "independent", with the implied assertion that the current closer (me) was neither, and said various other things above to try to continue to assert (insinuate?) that. (Age-old tactic - don't let lack of evidence stop you from making unfounded assertions. See also Three men make a tiger, among other things.)

And I merely was and am pointing them out. I honestly am unconcerned about Collect's implied assertions save that I think it's a bit disingenuous to assert such things then claim "I never said that". But shrugs, to each their own.

But regardless, my apologies to you Demiurge1000 if is was in any way unclear that my stating "...you, Collect..." implied someone else. - jc37 04:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

jc37 previously commented previously that " If some truly uninvolved editor feels that they now wish to close the discussion, please feel free. You (completely uninvolved editor) are welcome to revert the close partially, fully, ..." (As such a close may require imposing bans, the editor would have to be an admin). Has your (jc37) position changed since that statement? What has been proposed is not a reversal of the page ban but a request for a second opinion from an admin not previously a participant in the discussion. NE Ent 11:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash. Your intent to trip up jc37 is seen on the various pages that you were so quick to comment on. Your immediate announcement after the closure/block on the Ref Desk talk page, here, gives the appearance of nothing less than an uncalled for attack on the judgement of a fellow editor. 54.196.70.85 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Preceding edit posted by an IP-hopper from Amazon.com - see separate section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

IOW -- you note that I not only did not raise the "uninvolved" bit, it was raised ab initio by ... Jc37 himself. All the snideness about me asserting he was "involved" because of my use of his own word is simply a sideshow unworthy of this noticeboard. I honestly thought he would welcome having others support what he himself suggested earlier. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(intervening attack was revdeled) Collect (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: The above troll was fed by TRM by his reinsertion of the post with the snarky edit summary: the point is well made and since it directly comments on your behaviour, you'd better leave it to someone... "uninvolved"). Cheers. I suggest that WP:Deny recognition constitutes sound advice here. And that no one here seems to have felt that the "instant block" in the case presented was wise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note, the above editor's behaviour was discussed by the so-called troll, including a diff. I'm sure there's an SPI somewhere covering all these IPs, or maybe they're just concerned editors who call a spade a spade. No tachyons required. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not in other words. I pick my words very carefully. Our wiki interaction is limited to words, and the problem with words is they are always context dependent. "Involved" is a particularly sticky wiki word, as it can mean both WP:INVOLVED -- editor abusing sysop privilege in content dispute -- and real life wikt:involved (prior association with a dispute); jc37 is clearly not the former and definitely the latter. Additionally it's not a binary thing, as jc37's use of the phrase "truly uninvolved" implies. It was for that specific reason I used the more grammatically awkward phrase previously a participant instead of the simple English involved (not WP:INVOLVED) that I was actually thinking.

What should be important at this point is not who said what to whom when why, but that there are concerns that good faith closure of a community discussion did not reflect a reasonable interpretation of the discussion; a unbiased read of the entire thread will show there are more than four of us who feel another look is appropriate. NE Ent 18:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And an unbiased read of the initial RFC will show that many editors raised concerns over behviour at the RD. While they may not have had a numerical advantage, their arguments were genuine and saddening and needed resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

However, this discussion is not about the original discussion per se, but about how that discussion was closed. And in this discussion, we've had comments about the close of option #2 such as:

• Bishonen: "call of 'consensus' ... not self-evidently clear"
• Floquenbeam: "I have a very hard time seeing a consensus"
• The Devil's Advocate: "[no] decent quorum to justify any finding of consensus"
• Lankiveil: "saying there was a consensus for option #2 was what Sir Humphrey might have described as a "courageous" decision"
• Collect: "there was no actual "clear consensus" there" and supports proposal that the closing of #2 be re-examined to determine if there was a clear consensus
• Demeiurge1000: supports proposal that the closing of #2 be re-examined to determine if there was a clear consensus
• NE Ent: supports proposal that the closing of #2 be re-examined to determine if there was a clear consensus
• Beyond My Ken: supports proposal that the closing of #2 be re-examined to determine if there was a clear consensus

So it's not just 4 editors questioning the close, and it's not about any one editor, we've got 8 editors in this discussion questioning whether the close for Option #2 accurately categorized the result of the debate, including a couple of admins and an Arb. Surely that should be enough for some other admin who has yet to comment here or in the original discussion to evaluate the close? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to go argumentum ab auctoritate the better Floquenbeam /Arb quote is: "I do not think there was a consensus for Option 2" NE Ent 23:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could engage those editors who stated their support for proposal 2 to contribute to this discussion, as it appears that none of them have been given an opportunity (or notification that this discussion even exists) to discuss this. Or perhaps it's too late, a done deal, that an admin had the guts to actually read opinion rather than simply count votes. As it stands, the enforcement of option 1 will mean those editors who have been ostracised, chased out and forced to leave the Ref Desks have no voice. Unless one of the above is prepared to initiate an RFC on the Ref Desk situation, of course, but it seems unlikely as many are actively chummy with one or more of those noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting that someone notify only one part of a topic ban discussion, the people that !voted for Option #2? As an admin, you certainly must be aware that such an action would be in direct contravention of WP:CANVASS. All the participants can be notified, but notifying one side only is verboten. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Great point. Thanks for your contributions. Apart from those which end up in you being blocked, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe I have commented a whole three times here, politely requesting an independent admin to address Jc37's own request for a third opinion. BMK and NE Ent have summarized the situation very well. I think any admin who's looked at the situation can and should act based on the clear facts. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

54 trolling

Amazon-based trolling / harassment-only accounts (DC and state of Washington, primarily):

54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs) Dec 17, 2013

54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs) Dec 28-29, 2013

54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs) Dec 31, 2013

54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs) Jan 4, 2014

54.204.117.139 (talk · contribs) Jan 6, 2014

54.196.70.85 (talk · contribs) Jan 19, 2014

If I've overlooked any, feel free to add to the list. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I've commented on Bugs' page, not realizing that his IP list was here as well. It would be useful if somebody good at the subtleties of rangeblocks could complement my analysis, because in that regard I'm kind of flying by the seat of my pants. I do agree with Bugs that there's some trolling and harassment in there. Bishonen | talk 07:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC).

Conflated problems, parallel discussions, and a proposed next step

After going back through the ANI in question -- as I'm sure several others have done now -- it's becoming clear the procedural problem rests with the conflation of two insufficiently related issues via three-part, three-party proposal followed by parallel arguments and a closure that sought to address them both (much to the confusion of those engaged in one argument or the other).

On one hand, there's the disruption and incivility via interactions between Baseball Bugs, Medeis, and The Rambling Man across many pages including the reference desk. This is the obvious impetus for #1 in the initial proposal, clearly, and its severity was made clear in the overwhelming support for #1. The confusion begins when people look to their interactions for evidence to support #2 (or #3), but don't see it. Obviously that three users can't get along doesn't mean they should be topic banned, right?

On the other hand, there's the issue that The Rambling Man was only involved in as one of many critics: the pattern of problematic contributions at the refdesk by Medeis and Baseball Bugs. Many of those participating in the discussion appear to be refdesk regulars (or former regulars) frustrated by this chronic issue and lack of admin intervention. For those people this was the ideal opportunity to seek the topic ban desired long before the recent flare up with The Rambling Man -- and which is only merited with consideration of broader, longer-term editing histories. While those looking to interactions between the three might be confused as to why #2 would even be proposed, to others it was the most important part of the proposal.

In other words, while I suspect the two editors who opened and closed the thread had similar motivations, I think it wasn't entirely clear to everyone involved just what was happening in terms of matching indiscretions with responses. It would've been clearer if these proposals were separated, rather than jointly proposed and thereby blurred: (A) "interaction ban for Baseball Bugs, Medeis, and The Rambling Man based on interactions between the three?" (B) "topic ban for Medeis and Baseball Bugs based on long-term editing record?" That The Rambling Man zealously sought to point out B doesn't mean A and B should be the subject of a single proposal/discussion.

Since it seems overwhelmingly clear there's consensus for (A), I think this discussion should be closed with that resolution, but that an RfC immediately be opened to address (B). (I say this as someone who was in favor of the ban in the original discussion, but at this point I think the closing resolution to enact the ban is not only evidently controversial -- which of course is not reason enough in itself, necessarily -- but also based on a confused discussion and confusing proposal. I'm confident a separate RfC will result in the same outcome, but going through the process seems worthwhile). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(presumably for "Running Man" you mean "Rambling Man"?! And yes, thank you for your suggestion, the ability to launch an RFC on the behaviour of editors at RD was paramount in my thinking, as I have stated variously. Of course, being IBAN'ed, I can no longer perform that task, so I appreciate the suggestion that this should be conducted post-haste.) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• So, your suggestion is that the topic ban on the three of us be removed, not because it was never supported by any consensus in the first place, but because it was misdirected, and should only have applied to Bugs and myself? TRM's behavior is not to be examined? The topic ban should simply be removed as unsupported. This requires no relitigation. The explicit result of the ANI was 17 argued votes against sanction 2, and 7/8 in favor of it. That's a failed consensus. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that because the original discussion was confused from the start, the only thing we can take away from it is that there was consensus for #1 (the interaction ban). Even if the vote tally leaned harder in either direction, #2 and #3 should be closed as no consensus. But, because the only reason there was anything resembling consensus for #2 is due to longer-term issues for which TRM is not a central figure, an RfC should be opened, immediately following the "no consensus" close, concerning you (Medeis) and Baseball Bugs. In the interim, there would be no topic ban, and a new evaluation of the arguments would be necessary by the next closing admin--but this thread would be closed. In practical terms, I'm on your side here (in the short term anyway). I think the determination that #2 had consensus should be overturned, but that it shouldn't prevent (and indeed should be predicated upon) an RfC. If that results in a topic ban or not, the process will at least have integrity (which it's lacking somewhat now). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that the only thing that can be taken away from the ANI is that point #1 is overwhelmingly supported. Recognizing that stands on its own, however. That there be an RfC on point #2 is not a proper condition of recognizing that fact. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's how things should happen: (1) Option 2 had no consensus, and should immediately be nullified; (2) If someone wants to file an RFC against either of us, they are free to do so; (3) If so, there should be two different RFC's, i.e. one for me and one for Medeis. The notion that we are somehow a "team" is a false characterization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It's true there's not really a precedent for a close made conditional on an RfC being opened, so how about this: an assurance to those parties who would continue to argue that #2 had consensus to enact that there will be an RfC on the issue. - I think that's fair to not want to be joined together as a "team" as has been the case. Two RfCs would probably be cumbersome, though, since the issue at hand is generally the same: unhelpful and/or offensive and/or counterproductive contributions at the refdesk. I think a single RfC could be properly framed to ensure separate consideration, though. But that's for a later step. Hoping jc37 weighs in about [the above] to legitimate moving away from this metadiscussion and to the separate discussion of #2 that would have ideally been separate from the start. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Several problems: The RfC rules appear to preclude yoking together editors. Second, RfCs specifically can not produce sanctions on their own. The proper solution is to vacate the close with regard to proposal 2, as no one at this point is suggesting that a "consensus" existed to topic ban the editors. Then after things cool down - say in one month, allow a new community sanctions thread at AN/I which will hopefully not have a multitude of "sections". At this point in time, I suggest that this is the only procedurally correct course under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifically which policies and guidelines say to allow a new ANI "after things cool down" such that it's the "only procedurally correct course under Wikipedia policies and guidelines?" You do raise the good point that an RfC cannot result in sanctions, which I was unclear on (although I'm not seeing anything about not being able to discuss two users in the same RfC). So I suppose a separate AN(/I) is the best course, but an arbitrary waiting period defeats the point.

The point is there are two issues that need to be discussed, and since at least one of them was ill-framed in the previous ANI, the discussion couldn't come to an adequate consensus. As this is not because of the issue itself, it doesn't make sense to just now push it aside. It should be adequately discussed in its own separate thread, apart from the interaction ban matters. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What Collect has suggested, in general follows what I was thinking. There is no consensus for a permanent ban from the ref desk. However, there have been some good-faith issues raised. So, what Collect calls a cooling-off period, I would call a probationary period, of whatever length can be agreed upon - I was thinking a month, but it could be anything - to demonstrate a willingness to stick to the straight and narrow on the ref desks, and thus obviate any reason or necessity to re-impose a topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify something: Bans, like blocks, are to be preventative. In this case to prevent disruption. Afaik, if anyone were to propose a "cool down" period, I would expect opposition to that idea, as it is contrary to how things are to be implemented, per long standing practice. (As an aside, one of the fastest ways to upend an WP:RFA is to suggest imposing a "cool down block" in response to a hypothetical.)- jc37 07:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If an admin finds that there was not consensus for a community sanction, the procedure is not to immediately propose a community sanction again -- the noticeboard is not the place to argue instantly for something which has already failed to gain consensus. That is the idea behind waiting a month -- that you are now so invested in the decision is unfortunate but irrelevant. "I would expect opposition to that idea, as it is contrary to how things are to be implemented, per long standing practice" is wrong and inapt. We do not keep after anyone with immediate proposals for sanctions after one proposal fails. And, at this point, there is now no doubt in my mind that proposal two failed. If we allow instant reruns of every call for sanctions, the editos in question would be quite effectively forced off of Wikipedia without anything remotely approaching an orderly process. Decisions once settled are not then "rerun ad nauseam" until the "right result" occurs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: - You missed the point. Procedure was flawed. A viable outcome could not be determined because the discussion was confused. That doesn't mean there was an on-topic discussion where everybody was arguing about the same thing and the result should be "no consensus" (or, obviously, that there was a consensus one way or the other). The discussion that should've taken place didn't, leading to a mistrial, so to speak. A mistrial that, in order to determine consensus, needs to be retried (again, so to speak). So your suggestion that this amounts to "keeping after" someone with sanction proposals is not applicable (nor the latest in a line of shots at jc37). It's a regrettable situation, but now in the way you describe. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I believe Rhododendrites has made a perfectly reasonable suggestion (and backed it with strong logic). I would suggest that unless jc37 explicitly objects that Rhododendrites goes ahead and does as suggested - "overturn" the close to be option A only and initiate a fresh discussion (at RfC or ANI depending on the goal of the discussion) on option B. I agree that the two issues (fighting between the 3 and Ref Desk disruption) are partially independent and the previous discussion improperly conflated the two. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A general RFC (in WP:RFC-style), as noted probably wouldn't be helpful, for several reasons, including a few of Collect's comments. If we were to implement as User:Rhododendrites suggests, it would probably need to be another WP:AN/I discussion. (essentially a redo on technical grounds - both as User:Rhododendrites notes and as User:Nyttend and I discussed (wording: topic ban / page ban).)

The other way to do this is as is already an option, any of the three can appeal the page ban, which in that case would also be an AN or AN/I discussion.

So anyway, since you asked (smile) - regardless of format, I in no way oppose starting a community discussion at WP:AN/I concerning whether one or more of the three editors should be page banned from the Reference Desk (including all its talk pages, subpages, and any other directly related pages). This can be an appeal, or due to perceived confusion of the previous nomination, or even because WP:CCC. A notice of the discussion should be placed at the reference desk so that those who may be affected by this may be aware of the discussion. If someone would like to notify everyone who participated in the previous discussion, that probably wouldn't be a bad idea either.

But in the meantime, considering the many concerns of our fellow Wikipedians, I would suggest all 3 editors stay away from the Ref Desk et al until this is resolved.

Incidentally, I'd like to commend User:Rhododendrites for some very well-reasoned, insightful comments. - jc37 06:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rhododendrondronites is "not an admin" -- but any admin can read the tea leaves -- with such a strong discussion, no one can claim "wheel war" at this point. The idea that editors can appeal a wrongful claim of consensus is not something which is practical as an admin might require a 3/4 "consensus" to overturn the "bold close" in the first place, while the best procedure is to do what Jc37 initially asked for -- that is for an admin to take him up on his invitation to review the close. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jc37: - Thanks. But if it's framed as an appeal, the discussion will inevitably become dominated by the present one -- about the enactment of the ban to begin with and the content of previous threads -- thus precluding discussion of the actual problem and inevitably leading to another unhappy outcome. I think the same would be true if the ANI were posed as a community discussion while the current ban stands, which has the additional problem of lacking urgency and would appear to be an appeal even if not framed that way. As much as I, too, in your position, would hate to feel as though I was validating the various accusations and rhetorical black-and-white imperatives here, to me, it's the best of the possible directions as I can see them: (a) you unclose #2 and an ANI is opened seeking action -- hopefully as though the previous ANI didn't even take place; (b) you let the close stand, it is contested and subsequently overturned such that the result is closer to an AfD "no consensus"; (c) you let the close stand, it runs its course or is contested and upheld; (d) you let the close stand, the parties appeal the ban, ensuing discussion hinges on procedurality, and again either the ban stands or it doesn't but we still haven't had a real discussion of the substance of #2. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Blinks <re-reads my comments> Ok, so after re-reading, I still think that they say what I thought they did, that I don't oppose your proposal for a "re-do" on a discussion. I merely suggested that it be an AN/I discussion for various reasons, including some Collect noted.

And frame the "why" of the discussion as you like. Call it an appeal, or a re-do on technical grounds, or even suggesting that consensus has changed. Regardless of the why of the discussion, it would be a request to the community to consider the question: Should one or more of the three editors in question be page banned from the Reference Desk (including all its talk pages, subpages, and any other directly related pages). I welcome this specific question being put before the community to discuss.

I've bolded this because I feel like I've repeatedly said this and it's not being heard.

Our goal presumably should be to try to respect the community's wishes, and to try to prevent disruption (particularly as noted by other members of the community). - jc37 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I would note that your close specifically bars any appeals for six months. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you not read anything I've actually been saying above? Anyway, here's a diff from 5 days ago, which I believe is reflected in my above comments. Happy reading. - jc37 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jc37: - Aha! Got it now. Indeed I did see that you were saying discussion can go ahead but I didn't read in the corresponding "and the current ban will be lifted." Well ok then. So what you're saying is that you're banning everyone and deleting the refdesk, right? Because you hate freedom? :) I'll open the ANI if nobody else does, but as I am a relative newbie to the refdesk I think there are others better equipped to do so. I'll post to the refdesk talk page and go from there. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how "one or more of the three editors" equals "everyone" lol, but enjoy your wiki-break/vacation if you so choose : )

And sure, if you would like any help with formatting, as I offered User:Medeis above, I would be happy to help. - jc37 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably doesn't need clarification (indicated by your reciprocal smiley), but I was kidding re: people repeatedly misunderstanding you. I'm not concerned about formatting the ANI or taking a wikibreak (as if I have the willpower); the reason I say I'm not best equipped is mainly because having not been lurking around the refdesk as long or as actively as others I don't have as many examples/diffs ready-to-hand, is all. Regardless, I'm moving my part of this thread over to the refdesk now. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, in my experience, when someone doesn't wish to actually hear what you are saying it's rather easy for them to decide to "not understand". It has been interesting to listen to what has been said here though, it's definitely been an experience. - jc37 06:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If your statement about "cooling off blocks" were true in practice, then every block would be indefinite. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Collect, you've made lots of dramatic and bold and italicised comments, but it's been substantially more heat than light, which is quite depressing, but not surprising. In other news, I agree that all three of us should be banned from the RDs for the six months proposed. In fact, it appears that other RD regulars breathed a sigh of relief when the initial close was made. One comment in particular seems pertinent to this "discussion". I could add other diffs discussing the behaviour of the other editors but I think I'm prohibited from doing so per the interaction ban. If the current sanction is overturned, it would be great (and entirely appropriate) for another editor to immediately launch an RFC about the behaviour all concerned editors at the Ref Desks. There should be nothing preventing an RFC being lodged, and it looks like we have plenty of volunteers, including many former RD regulars who no longer contribute there. While I'm prohibited from commenting on other editors' behaviour, I hope I'm allowed to be polite and note it's been gratifying to see at least one of them getting stuck into mainspace edits, along with a promise to rein in the chuckles at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- ad hom rants do not actually belong here. I did bold comments when people accused me of writing what I did not write, of doing things I did not do, and I admit to thinking that making ad hom charges here indicates a problem on your part. Further you should note that I had zero interaction with you prior to this discussion, making your vehemence against me a puzzlement at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you have just plenty more drama to add, and that seems evident from your track record. If you have something to actually action, do it. Otherwise, remember what you've been told, Arbcom etc.... Your perplexing ban on me from your talk page is puzzling. I've never posted there, unless, of course, you consider these pages as your talk pages? That'd be appropriate given your contributions. Your "reputation" precedes you.... Let's get this RFC started! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I looked at that thread when it was going on, and was considering posting something to oppose sanction 2, but decided that what was already posted was SNOW-y enough against the sanction that I didn't bother posting. I've never had problems with the wascally wabbit at any of the wefdesks. I'm shocked to hear that the sanction "passed", and it does sound like a bad closure. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Starting yet another ANI discussion about the closure is not called for. This is that discussion already. Jc37 started this discussion, explicitly asking for a review of his closure. We've got exactly that in these threads. Excluding the parties of the ANI there is not a single user among some ten who have commented who says there was consensus for sanction 2. (This is greater than the 7 or 8 users in the original ANI who supported sanction 2 in the first place.)

On this basis the finding should be reversed now.

We don't need another ANI to discuss the meaning of this AN in discussing the closure of the prior ANI. We simply need one uninvolved admin to say officially there was no consensus, or there actually was. Where does one recruit such an admin? Is there a tag or template? Someone should be invited t act on this review of the closure, not another review. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's clear that the Option 2 decision should be tossed out. And it occurs to me that, for the sake of fairness, if there is to be an RFC following up on Option 2, it would necessarily have to review all the parties to that option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very content to be banned from the Ref Desks indefinitely, assuming that applies to all other appellants. As noted above, there's been a certain "sigh of relief" from the existing RD regulars since this option has been exercised. Should the discussion need to be held again, then an RFC is the only way forward, and I'll gladly and immediately volunteer to be banned from Ref Desks under the current sanctions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Has Option 1 been nullified? I don't recall seeing any announcement about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: @Medeis: - Clarifying: The [not yet created] new ANI is not connected to this one or the previous. Unless I misunderstand jc37's intentions, the IBAN stands as the only result from the previous ANI. The topic ban is to be lifted irrespective of consensus one way or the other because the procedure/proposal which conflated the interaction ban issue with the topic ban issue was flawed from the start. In other words, they should've been discussed separately; now they will be (and not in connection to past ANIs). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If any editor here alleges that the ref desk is happy that Option 2 has been implemented, should such a comment be allowed to stand without supporting reference, or should citation(s) be required? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Option 1 has not been nullified. Check here, and you will find 4 restrictions that apply to you, including "Option 1". As far as "...happy that Option 2 has been implemented..." see the last paragraph of the link that TRM gave. 202.4.114.18 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC) (edit from "confirmed proxy server") Collect (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I do recall that comment of Baker's, and he was clearly pleased that Option 2 had been implemented against all parties. I'm not sure that single comment is enough to make any bold claims about what the ref desk regulars, as a whole, think of this process. I can think of various occasions where some topic has come up and someone said, "Ask Bugs, he'll know." Alas, barring a rollback of Option 2, they'll have to ask someone else now. I haven't looked at the ref desk since the ban was clarified, so I don't know what questions have arisen lately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

In regard to editing restrictions, aside from the current discussion they're basically moot, as they have to do with topics and/or persons that I'm uninterested in and are off my radar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to offer any opinion, only to provide links that may have provided information for you on the 2 questions you raised. 202.4.114.18 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)edit from "confirmed proxy server" Collect (talk)

Thanks for the info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To re-state: As of right now, option 1 and 2 have consensus. The implementation of Option 2 does not preclude starting an WP:AN/I discussion concerning option 2. So yes the page ban is in place, and yes also you are welcome to start an AN/I community discussion concerning option 2 (page ban). You can frame it as an appeal, as a "re-do", or even frame it as if you feel consensus has changed (or all of the above, if you like).

And one other thing I should probably point out. Based upon the discussion, it would seem that the reason option 2 was under discussion is due to what commenters saw as disruption at the reference desk et al. Even if there was no page ban in place, at this stage, I think that any admin could consider all three of you warned that further disruption is unacceptable, and could immediately block at their discretion.

(takes off my admin's hat and closer hat for a moment) - And incidentally, I would think that if you want the ban lifted, you would want a community discussion before returning to the reference desk, both as an opportunity to show community support, and to express to the community that your intentions are not to cause disruption, even unintentionally, and therefore displaying for the community that such preventative measures are unnecessary. Quality edits in the meantime might be helpful as well. But anyway, I leave such thoughts and decisions to your discretion of course.

(picks up the two hats) - Also, I think I saw that nobody ent tried to start such a discussion, but it was removed. Other than using the phrase "topic ban" (which I am uncertain if they concretely meant) rather than page ban, I'm not sure what was untoward in the discussion being started - oh and it probably should have been at AN/I as the original forum, I suppose, but venue shouldn't be much of a big deal, as a neutral notice may be placed regardless of discussion location. - jc37 06:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There was no "community" decision to implement option 2. There was no consensus. You simply decided to impose your will. You should admit that you got it wrong, and rescind option 2. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jc37 - I must admit that I don't really understand why you brought this here for community consideration if you're unwilling to accept what the comments of the community mean - you could have simply sat on your haunches after closing the discussion and imposing the bans. Instead, you csme here, asking for community input, which speaks well of you -- but you seem determined to ignore the input you received.

My reading of the comments here, which is backed up by pretty much everyone except The Rambling Man, is that everyone agrees that Option #1, the mutual interaction ban, has consensus, but that there is 'no clear consensus for Option #2. That's not simply my opinion, it's the consensus opinion here. Why you continue to contest that, in the face of the comments you/ve received, confuses me. Please, you asked' for community reconsideration of your close, and you have received that input. Now, please act in accordance with the feedback you received, void your close of Option #2, and allow other Wikipedia processes to deal with that problem. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My read on this is that BB, BMK and others are asking for the wrong action (jc37 to reverse himself), and taking this conversation back in a loop. I see that:

A) jc37 is confident in his closure, but open to having others review it.

B) jc37 did not count votes, but pursued consensus by researching the various opinions, and giving weight to them based on the evidence. Skimming the discussion would easily form an opinion of no consensus for a page ban, but by diving into opinions concerning the Ref Desk, and it's talk page history, he may have found that "This" conversation is just the manifestation of a deeper, long rooted problem that has existed at the Ref Desk for some time.

C) jc37 has provided...repeatedly now...a suggested remedy for anyone that feels a need for a "re-do", a correction of a "wrong", or that a change of consensus is now upon us.

D) The facts of the matter are not in question, it is whether or not any individuals decide to make an appeal.

202.4.114.18 (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)edit from "confirmed proxy server" Collect (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, first, to be clear (in case it wasn't), none of the IPs above are me.

Regardless, last I recall, IPs are welcome to comment in any discussion. (While noting their comments won't "count" in a consensus determination at RfA/RfB.) - jc37 18:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the IP 202 above is listed at [90] as a confirmed proxy server and is noted as Recently reported forum spam source. It was blocked for two months back in 2012 as a proxy account. Collect (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But that in no way detracts from the points the IP has raised. On another note, it would be interesting to invite those who contributed to the original and incompetently-worded car-crash AN/I to participate here. Most of the discussion here has been from AN or AN/I "regulars" who haven't actually ventured out of the shell and experienced the issues under debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jc37: - I, too, am confused now. We just had an exchange above that I thought belabored just the opposite of what you're now saying. When I asked for clarification and you responded (the response above starting with "blinks"), you reaffirmed that don't oppose a "re-do." In particular, Call it an appeal, or a re-do on technical grounds, or even suggesting that consensus has changed. Regardless of the why of the discussion, it would be a request to the community to consider the question: Should one or more of the three editors in question be page banned from the Reference Desk. As the meaning of "re-do" is a retrial and nullification of previous outcomes, I felt secured that we were on the same page and so responded as such (Indeed I did see that you were saying discussion can go ahead but I didn't read in the corresponding "and the current ban will be lifted."). But now I see you don't actually mean "re-do." You mean "appeal," just as you did when the thread began, but you're open to the appeal being worded as something other than an appeal. This is silliness. A "re-do" implies voiding the "initial-do" in order to "re-do" it. It does not mean "let the initial-do stand unless there's a different outcome when the process is repeated." When there's a "re-do" in sports after a point is scored, the point doesn't stand pending the outcome of the re-do; it's considered never to have happened. When there's a re-trial, the original trial is nullified; otherwise it's an appeal. Your words indicate being open to all sorts of other possibilities, but when it comes down to it I don't see what the point of this thread has been if we're still in the same place we were when the previous discussion closed. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I posted here to review the block related to the recent close as I noted. And the main take away so far has been: a.) that the close needed clarification and b.) that I felt per comments here and a discussion at User talk:Nyttend, that I should apologise for the block (and would have unblocked, had the editor not already been unblocked).

I did apologise, the editor is unblocked, and the close has been clarified, in particular to allow for an immediate appeal of the page ban, rather than needing to wait 6 months.

And you presume a "re-do" requires the "initial do" (to use your terms) to be overturned first. That is not necessarily true, and in my estimation, is rarely the case on Wikipedia. Examples go from here to arbcom.

Regardless, I suppose I should accept, as the IP apparently noted, that this discussion is becoming circular indeed.

If this was an WP:XFD close, I think about now I'd be pointing to WP:DRV. So in this case, I think it's probably time to point to WP:AN/I concerning appeal of the page ban etal, as I have suggested repeatedly above. Thank you to everyone who took the time to comment. It has been appreciated. - jc37 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's becoming "circular", you're the one to blame, as you made a bad decision and you're sticking with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

More clarification needed - I was hinting at something earlier, and nobody seems to have picked up on it, so I'll put it slightly more directly: If one of the members of the interaction ban makes a comment indicating everyone at the ref desk is happy that we're banned, isn't that comment by itself a violation of the interaction ban? And whether it is or not, doesn't it require supporting evidence? And by "supporting evidence", I mean more than just a several-days-old offhand comment by a single editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As described, a diff was given, the above editor actually commented. Isn't the above comment by itself a violation of the interaction ban? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to anyone "who took the time to comment"? The question asked by User:Collect is still open, and there's not a single uninvolved party suggesting it isn't. Unless one counts IP's who've shown up for that sole purpose. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion on and off but couldn't really be bothered commenting. But I'll try to put you 2 out of your misery. As a reference desk regular I can confirm I'm not happy that μηδείς or BB have been topic banned. I'm not saying I'm unhappy. Although I was mildly opposed the topic ban, I don't care that much either way. Is this enough or is there now going to be an argument over whether there is any RD regular who is unhappy over the topic ban?

In case it's not clear, I don't see how this is a productive discussion in any way. In nearly any case, we can be sure that there will be someone who isn't happy, someone who is happy and someone who doesn't care, provided there are enough people and there probably are enough considering the strength of feelings about BB at least. Someone not caring is generally the most likely thing to exist. The fact that some people were happy is a given since some people who supported option 2 were reference desk regulars. It's fairly likely at least one person is unhappy too since I seem to recall some of those strongly opposed were RD regulars. Of course it's possible they changed their minds, but again none of this really matters. Most people who cared enough to comment already gave their opinions in the previous discussion and that's all that really matters here.

I do think having an uninvolved admin review the consensus would be helpful. While I'm not sure there was consensus for option 2 myself, I explicitly am not saying that option 2 had no consensus since I didn't look closely enough. But considering this continuing controversy, it may be the only way to put the issue to bed. In particular, hopefully it will mean you three can respect option 1 which I think we all agree had consensus. We could have another discussion, but I think the state of discussion here and in WTRD strongly implies most people are sick of discussing it.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jarndyce v Jarndyce: call for uninvolved admin

"Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means." No no no no no, please don't start all over again on ANI. For the love of god, could an uninvolved admin please please review the obvious consensus above for reviewing the consensus of the ANI discussion which Jc37 closed, then go ahead and review that ANI discussion consensus already, and either void or confirm Jc37's finding that Baseball Bugs, Medeis and TheRamblingMan are banned from the reference desk? Anybody out there who hasn't already commented? I do realize it'll take a big chunk out of your life that you'll never get back, but it's either that or the whole estate will be absorbed in costs.

-"Do I understand that the whole estate is found to have been absorbed in costs?"

-"Hem! I believe so," returned Mr. Kenge.

Bishonen | talk 10:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

If nobody else does it, I will start doing it in the evening of European time.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nah, that's okay, I've been looking at this issue for the past few hours (with the help of a stiff drink...) and am about ready to do the thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do it by all means.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I speak for the entire Court of Chancery when I say thank you, guys. Bishonen | talk 08:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC).

Okay, uninvolved admin analysis

Full disclosure here: Bishonen did email me and ask me to take a look at this. I don't think that makes me involved; I'm certainly not doing her bidding, or have formed my opinions based on hers. I know I'm not the only one she's emailed, either, so it's not like she carefully selected me as a person who would give her the answer she wanted. Whatever. Anyway:

Looking back at the previous ANI thread, I have to agree with the number of editors here; I don't find that there's consensus for option 2. Not many people supported it; many opposed it. Some of those who did support two qualified their support (things like "for Bugs and Medeis only", e.g. NoFormation and Steve Baker; "for Bugs only", e.g. Rhododendronite; etc.). One of the major problems is that option 2 lumps Medeis, Bugs, and TRM into one group, as if they were on "the same team", so to speak; they are not, and so asking for a blanket topic ban for all three of them doesn't make much sense. This is borne out through the aforementioned qualified supports, and also in this thread. To ignore these qualifications and implement the blanket ban anyway is to misread the intent of the participants. Also, there are several editors (e.g. NE Ent, Mendaliv, KTC, Agathoclea) who feel that all three of the measures are too harsh, and one who specifically withdrew their support (APL) for measure 2 based on the positive contributions that Medeis makes to the refdesk, furthering the apparent harshness of the sanctions. These are all reasonable issues to take against the measure, none of which were particularly refuted as such. I know that this is not a vote, but let's look at the numbers anyway: 5 support option 2. 4 express qualified support (which cannot be considered a real support for the blanket enactment of 2 that Jc37 did, but still.) 16 people explicitly oppose it (either through saying something like "Support 1 only" or through saying something like "oppose 2" or expressing disagreement with 2 in their rationale). 5 don't mention measure 2 (which could or could not be taken as opposition to #2, but certainly couldn't be taken as a support). So, even reading these numbers in the terms most favorable to #2, 9 supporting and 16 opposing, we have a serious imbalance in the numbers. Again, this not being a vote, the imbalance is not automatically mean that #2 doesn't have consensus, but the numbers aren't irrelevant, either: there would need to be a serious imbalance in the validity of the arguments in favor of the supporters, and I just can't see how that could be said to be the case; the opposes are legit. So, taking jc37 at their word when they said they were looking for a third opinion and that they didn't mind to be overturned, I would say that option 2 (that is, the page bans of Bugs, Medeis, and TRM from the Refdesk) did not have consensus, and therefore, I'll take the responsibility to vacate them. If y'all still think topic bans of some sort are called for, I'd recommend starting an RfC or something for each editor individually, to make things as clear as possible. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 09:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Writ Keeper. Just a minor pedantry: you've reminded Bugs, Medeis, and TRM on their pages that Option 1, the interaction ban, is still in force, and you put it in a way that could be taken to mean that none of the three may interact with each other. That wasn't Option 1, since Bugs and Medeis are on good terms, as I take it, and are free to interact all they want to. The users themselves will hardly be confused, but you might want to clarify your notes to them just to make sure some admin who hasn't followed this doesn't come along and hassle Bugs and Medeis for chatting. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC).

Except they should be hassled if they chat on a reference desk or a reference desk talk page as that has been overdone. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Can this be closed now? BMK (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2014 (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.

Looking for unsuitable usernames

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:DeltaQuadBot used to look for unsuitable usernames, and put its findings in Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, but (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DeltaQuadBot ) it has not done this since 01:13, 14 December 2013. What has happened to it? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left a message for the bot op here notifying him. Organics^LRO 14:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember this was discussed either at AN or ANI a few weeks ago also, did nothing come out of it? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussed here, here and here. So, no, nothing ever seems to come of it, to say the least. Rgrds. --64.85.215.175 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2014 (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.

Closure review 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.

---

Would an uninvolved admin please review the non-admin closure of Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey? The non-admin who closed the discussion used very strong language disparaging the sincerity of those who have been discussing the topic. Worse, the non-admin closure did not properly weigh peer reviewed secondary sources opposed to astroturfed propaganda sources. It was opened December 1st, and while the arguments continue on other articles' talk pages, the RFC sections have not been touched for weeks other than for the non-admin closure. EllenCT (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Concur with the closure. The fact that it was an WP:NAC is irrelevant; NAC's done by an uninvolved editor are just as valid as admin closes. And closure review is done by this board, not by an individual admin. As such, although I find myself in philosophical agreement with those advocating the inclusion of the graphs, the closure seems to only be deficient in terms of a lack of details. But the closure is, nevertheless, a valid summary of the discussion. There is no consensus to include the images, and the parenthetical is also in good faith: those advocating inclusion are fighting against the fairly clear consensus in regards to this matter. Continuing to fight this battle is disruptive, and Ellen would be well advised to drop the WP:stick and work on making productive contributions to the article. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you consider the extent to which right-wing political think tanks' unreviewed sources, such as the income tax graph from the Peterson Foundation, are being used to counter the conclusions of the secondary peer-reviewed literature, e.g. on corporate tax incidence? I strongly object to the implication that upholding the standards of source reliability is beating a dead horse with a stick. EllenCT (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you just changed the question. Did you want a closure review, or did you just want to re-argue the matter? A closure review asks whether the closure was an accurate and good-faith summary of the discussion. This one does not seem to have crossed any lines. A closure review does not include questions like "how would I have commented?", or even "how would I have closed the discussion myself?". You are asking me to lodge an opinion on the underlying matter, not of the closure itself, and that is something I have no interest in doing, considering that I did not comment on the matter the first time around, even though I was aware of the discussion. If you have concerns about the balance of ideological material in the article, the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard is thataway. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• As a non-admin who occasionally does close discussions like this, I'd say A) the closure was correct. There was no consensus for inclusion in those discussions. And B) I'd say the closure could have been better done with a bit more tact. But yeah, the results of the close were correct. Hobit (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2014 (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.

Nigger (song)

Good day. Why I can't create the article with such name? Can you please restore this one....I promise, it will have just a redirect to Clawfinger discography#Nigger. I'm not going to create the text.....so please, restore it just for redirect. Thanks --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You may be better off using a sandbox to show your intended article to people before it goes live. Britmax (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

oppose? I cant imagine justifying such a controversial redirect title for such a non notable song (no charting, no reviews, no evidence of influence or impact, etc). A far more useful redirect target would be [[91]] imo, but that is probably not necessary as the N word itself is already the title of that article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The song is not terribly notable, but it would be a plausible search term for the discography or the album. Being "controversial" should not really be an issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that an article with that name was ever created. So, how can it be "restored"?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the page is blocked to non-admins to prevent vandalism, but the suggestion above is not vandalism.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

But if the song is not notable ("if", I have no idea one way or the other), then there's no need for an article, and, as Gaijin42 says, unsalting it simply for a redirect seems like creating unnecessary controversy. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Moot point. The disambiguation in the title makes a redirect pointless. Ansh666 03:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How so? For readers familiar with our naming conventions and seeking information about the song, "Nigger (song)" is an obvious search term. Readers unfamiliar with our naming conventions might simply search by the title, at which point seeing "Nigger (song)" among the results would be very helpful.

Thus far, no valid reason to deny ВікіПЕДист's request has been given. Clawfinger discography#Nigger is an extant article section about a song titled Nigger. "Nigger (song)" is a plausible search term. Nigger#Music contains no mention of a song titled Nigger, so it isn't an appropriate target (and no other song with this title has been mentioned). The word "nigger" appears on our title blacklist to prevent vandalism, not to impose special restrictions on legitimate contributions because the word is controversial. Regardless, readers are unlikely to encounter the redirect without typing the word "nigger" or otherwise seeking information thereon, so it's difficult to foresee a realistic scenario in which the it provokes controversy. —David Levy 04:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that Salvidrim! has redirected the page name to Nigger (disambiguation)#Music (on which no other song titled Nigger is mentioned) without elaboration. Is the basis that readers might mistakenly refer to Rock n Roll Nigger by this title? —David Levy 08:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me, why the page Nigger (Clawfinger song) is also blocked? --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure "Nigger" is just blacklisted entirely. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, probably in part because of a certain clown that used to frequent these parts... Ansh666 01:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't give one troll that much credit; it was blacklisted long before Bonkers' antics. On a side-note, no search-results come up while typing "Nigger (song)" into the search-box; typing it out entirely and hitting "enter" takes one to the desired location, but it's all but useless as a search-term. I wonder if anything can be done about this. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Pages currently take a couple of days after being created to show up in the search suggestions, so you should be able to see it on the list fairly soon. This wait is apparently reduced to a minute or two with the new search backend that will be introduced soon. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Searching for "nigger song", which is assume is the most likely use of that term, returns these top results, in order:

1. Nigger (disambiguation) (redirect from Nigger (song))
2. Clawfinger discography (redirect from Nigger (Clawfinger song))
3. Rock n Roll Nigger
4. Nigger

I think this seems appropriate and desirable and it's how I think it should be, for the sake of our readers. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Nigger song" is not the same as "Nigger (song)". The latter refers to a song whose exact title is "Nigger". Precisely one song titled "Nigger" is mentioned within the pages cited in this discussion. —David Levy 16:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To us Wikipedians. But the project isn't made for us, it's made for readers, and for readers, nigger song is practically indistinguishable from Nigger (song). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Having encountered the "Title (song)" format on previous occasions, many non-editing readers are familiar with that naming convention. Those who aren't familiar with it are exceedingly unlikely to include the parentheses in a search.

Why did you just create Nigger song as a double redirect? —David Levy 16:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

'Cause I'm a dumbass. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the above was light-hearted self-deprecation. In case it wasn't, I want stress that my question wasn't intended as an insult (and I'm sorry if it came across in that light). —David Levy 17:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Pshah, don't fret, I have an entire alternate account dedicated only to highlighting the fact that I sometimes do stupid mistakes. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Salvidumbass!, in case anyone doesn't feel like checking the page history. Nyttend (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! Nyttend is correct! You win. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Could we have some admin eyes at Talk:Genesis creation narrative? Specifically there seems to be a lot of battlegrounding going on, and some personal attacks to boot. I said a few weeks ago that I'd watch the page and block people who went overboard but I haven't had the time to do that, so more admin eyes would be appreciated. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I second that, there is a lot of emotion flying around there and far more heat than light being generated. I poked my nose in there briefly and made an offer to try and get a clearer picture of the situation and myself was rather harshly attacked. I'd suggest several admin eyes, and people who can all stay very, very neutral. Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if I should comment, but given User:Til Eulenspiegel's latest attack on me at Talk:Burrows Cave#Alexander Helios where I removed something because the wrong person was said to have suggested it (Til responds "I take it that according to Doug, we are not allowed to mention the name of Alexander Helios in the article, nor explain that he has anything whatsoever to do with this theory as the A&E Network show did, because that's "too sensitive"..." although my edit summary simply said "not Burrows' claim"- Russell Burrows that is). Til has a long history of attacks such as this. At Talk:Genesis creation narrative an editor has picked him up for saying things such as "your bigoted goal of removing Christianity's voice from wikipedia", "you eliminated Christianity from wikipedia", "you are so desperate to utterly remove your enemy, Christianity, from wikipedia". I also see phrases such as "That tired old lie won't fool anyone." I'm not saying everyone else is behaving perfectly there, but Til creates a confrontational attitude. He did at that talk page, he's doing it now at Talk:Burrows Cave. The problem with Til at Talk:Genesis creation narrative is an old one, see[92] and [93]. It's worth looking at [94] Admins can read the rev/del'd material that brought this to ANI.[95] There's more on other talk pages I could show but this is representative. I don't know what the solution is but I think that this sort of battlefield mentality has gone on long enough to need one. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What creates a confrontational attitude is a couple editors with their heads so far up their ass they seriously try to argue that Christian viewpoints have no business in articles about Christianity because of "Conflict of Interest" and all articles about Christianity can therefore only be written by their detractors. I try to clarify to these people that since day one, Mormon views are mentioned on Mormon articles, Scientologist views are mentioned on Scientologist articles etc. but they use atrocious logic to throw every fallacy in the book into the discussion. I am attacking their atrocious logic only, and to claim that I am the source of all confrontation here is an underhanded and barely disguised attempt to remove me from the debate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the most recent page move request (Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move) that's the problem. It's been open since Dec. 26, with constructive discussion ending long ago. A neutral admin should simply close it. I think that Til Eulenspiegel has been on the receiving end of a lot of baiting there (and has been taking the bait). Any blocks would have to include a whole cast of characters. I think that if an admin just closed this latest RM (the 11th for this article's title by my count), it would be akin to declaring "Let there be Light!". First Light (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you create confrontation by assuming bad faith. Our first interaction started off by you saying, "This response seems like a bias against using any source that indicates Christianity in the source, as part of a trend of increased bigotry to get that viewpoint declared illegitimate according to wikipedia." [96] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably an edit conflict there, since I never said that. Either way, the bad blood on this article's title goes way back. Closing this move request now would end the current problem, at least until the next move request. First Light (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@First Light Why did you change my indentation? [97] I've change it back as it was clear I was replying to Til. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I was assuming, wrongly apparently, that consecutive unindented comments are confusing to those trying to make sense of a discussion. Apologies, First Light (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

One way to show who you are replying to is "@First Light" etc. First Light, the point I am trying to make is that this isn't unusual behavior by Til. I didn't bait him at Talk:Burrows Cave. I've given examples of other times he was reported here or at ANI. Closing the discussion is a good idea, but won't deal with the basic problem. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller - I understand that you're pointing out that there may be broader issues with Til's behavior, and wasn't replying to those other issues. But since this thread's title and birth was about the Genesis article, I wanted to point out that there could rightfully be a lot of blocks thrown around for what's been going on there for a long time. Another thread or an RfC might be best for the broader issues, only because of all the rancorous baiting and back and forth at Genesis. First Light (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased that Til Eulenspiegel posted in a typical way at 14:40, 21 January 2014 above. It saves me having to provide too many examples of his regular habit of exaggerating and misrepresenting what I (and others) say. There are many other examples on the Talk page we're discussing here. Up above he says "What creates a confrontational attitude is a couple editors with their heads so far up their ass they seriously try to argue that Christian viewpoints have no business in articles about Christianity because of "Conflict of Interest" and all articles about Christianity can therefore only be written by their detractors." Obviously nobody has said that. And nobody has their heads up their arses. (My preferred spelling of that last word.) It's impossible to rationally discuss matters with an editor who contributes in that way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is what you are saying in your exact words: "You know, I'd love to see Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules applied to religious articles. Christian opinion should not influence the content of articles on Christianity. Buddhist opinion should not influence articles on Buddhism. Etc, etc, etc. What do you think? HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to demonstrate the falseness of Til's claims that he addressed logic only, here are a few quotes. "First they declare Genesis = fiction (because THEY say so - doesn't matter what anyone else thinks). Next they will feel so empowered they will set their sights on the Quran, Book of Mormon, Baghavad Gita and Lotus Sutra etc. and try to officially declare which parts of that they think are "myth" and need to be declared "fiction" according to THEM. Instead of the original basic idea wikipedia was founded on, treating all major competing world views in the world impartially - it becomes the antithesis" ; "your bigoted goal of removing Christianity's voice from wikipedia";"you eliminated Christianity from wikipedia"; "you are so desperate to utterly remove your enemy, Christianity, from wikipedia". "And you despise [Christianity] that is clear." Note that the discussion is about changing one word in a title. Rwenonah (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the best spin jobs at cherry picking quotes out of context ever, but one would have to read the entire page to see some of the ridiculous things that have been said in the endless (going on one month this round) unfounded complaining about the supposed "bias" of the term "narrative". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Til, thank you for finally quoting my exact words. It's a big improvement in your behaviour. However, while you seem to think it's somehow wrong, I still strongly believe that "Christian opinion should not influence the content of articles on Christianity." Christian opinions can be included as quotations, with an attribution that the holder of that opinion is Christian, but they must never guide how we write the article. The concept that we treat Christianity differently from other faiths, apparently because there's a lot of Christians likely read it and some might be offended if we treat it just like all other religions, is completely unacceptable to me, but I think it's what you want. Apologies if I have misrepresented your position there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I closed the RM. Hopefully all parties take a step back and let things cool down now. If not, further admin actions (stern warnings/blocks for those who continue to engage in inappropriate behavior) may be required. --ThaddeusB (talk)

• I find comments like that pretty unhelpful. You have not identified any inappropriate behaviour, nor those who are guilty of it. None of the latter will believe they are guilty of any of the former. Not sure what it will achieve. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• A fair critique... I will be keeping an eye on things and will give specific (hopefully helpful) warnings for anything I see going forward. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see how the result could be anything other than no consensus. But I had been wondering, that if the closer had made reference to unanswered arguments, whether it was worth taking it to a move review, on the basis that personal attacks from editors were driving people away. I know I was driven away by the personal attacks, though none were directed at me. I submitted a !vote, and I think something I said was queried, but I didn't respond because of the toxic environment that had developed (nothing to do with the person who queried what I said, though!) Anyway, the whole issue is moot now, but it raised an interesting question - are personal attacks within a discussion sufficient grounds for contesting a requested move result? StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The name calling and bad behavior was limited to a few participants and most of us were able to exchange views, possibly strongly held, without attacking the other person. The last thing I would want to see is for this discussion to be reopened.--agr (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of block

• Nascarman1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I indeffed this user for creating inappropriate articles, removal of templates, and WP:NOTHERE. Because this does not appear to be run-of-the-mill vandalism, I've brought it here for others to look at. A review at the user's talk page (including a final warning from Gogo Dodo), contribution history, and deleted contribution history is illuminating. The user's two interests appear to be fire departments and NASCAR, and he's repeatedly creating really silly articles about fire departments, and one-sentence articles about NASCAR (teams, drivers, etc.). The articles keep getting tagged for speedy delete. Some get deleted, the tags of some are declined (I've even done that because I'm not sure of my ground when it comes to sports notability), and others redirected.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Prolly a stern talking to and pointing out that single line articles generally are frowned upon might help and that we do like to see references for what is in articles? WTH - he might even be salvageable, 2 days is not a long time for an editor to enter and be ejected :(. Of course I am not second-guessing the block after a final warning, but think perhaps in future cases we might offer some better rope at the 2 day mark? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I gave the user some advice on my talk page, but they don't seem to have taken it. I ignored his question about he can tag and delete articles (part of the WP:NOTHERE).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

More evidence of cluelessness on the user's talk page, as well as threats of disruption post-block:

I have read the article on the board about my recent blocking. I am working hard to block the individual who blocked me. I am a very strong believer in equality, and I know the folks at Wikipedia are too, so I know that I have the same rights on here to block other people as they have done. The page said I was doing inappropriate articles, which I never have done. I am already sending in a request to be unblocked, and if that fails I will be creating a new account on a different computer.

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the editor is clueless. This the normal state of affairs for a new editor. Given that the editor has been here for 2 days, had a total of 47 mainspace, 2 talk and ~4 user talk, it's had to see how WP:NOTHERE applies -- the editor clearly wants to contribute, they just don't know how. They should be unblocked with firm instructions not to create any redirects or new articles until they get the lay of the land and perhaps some direction to the teahouse. The silliness about "blocking" and creating a new account should, of course, be ignored. NE Ent 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

References

What earned them their final warning from me was the first redirect they created for Jim Rosenblum Racing. I gave them the final warning after noticing the previous warnings given to them. I didn't check over their previous edits when I issued the warning. After now reviewing all of their edits, I suspect that the editor means well and should be given another chance. The redirect I deleted was their only vandalism edit that I can see. Their unblock has been declined, so perhaps we should see what they do after reading NE Ent's advice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "advice" except in the broadest sense. NE Ent spoonfed the user as to what to say in an unblock request. So, let's say the user makes another unblock request repeating what NE Ent said they should say - we're supposed to accept that as credible?--Bbb23 (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

They didn't and their latest unblock request was declined. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I see an enthusiastic but misguided newbie whose talk page was plastered with templates and warnings without anyone extending a friendly helping hand until NE Ent came along. Sadly all too common here. Thrub (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Assume Ignorance? ES&L 13:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

can't say that one hasn't tried. Going on the usual assumption that he's read what has been removed, his last (declined) unblock request has all the hallmarks of a severe lack of clue and we all know how that usually ends. Blackmane (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandal category needs removal

Now blocked editor Hole rabbit (talk · contribs) recently added "Category:Shits" to {{OW}}. Before this was reverted, it was added to 85 IP pages. Can someone unlink these, possibly with a mass rollback or such?--Auric talk 21:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't need it, MediaWiki will sort it automatically. Not immediately, unless you do a null edit on each user page, to force a page recreation using the now-clean template. Any editor could do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.--Auric talk 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the purpose of {{OW}}? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Mainly for school IPs, dynamic IPs or business IPs, etc., where it is obvious the current user does not need to see a talk page full of crap from 11 years ago, but the history may be useful to an investigation or whatnot. Rgrds. --64.85.214.127 (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned the category with some API magic. Normally it's best to wait for MediaWiki to update categories by itself, but I think it's reasonable to make an exception for vandal categories like this one. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just finished clearing it. For some reason, pages would show on the category page, despite the category not showing on the user talk page.--Auric talk 14:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter2212 requesting unblock

Could someone take a look at User talk:Peter2212 and handle the unblock request there? It's been sitting open for 3+ weeks now. I can't quite make full sense of the plagiarism concerns involved, but hopefully someone else can. only (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll handle it. Not going to do anything about it directly at the moment, but I'm going to ask the blocking admin fro input. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

13 January expired PRODs

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

---

Hello, just noticed that there are a lot of expired PRODs for 13 January. Is there a reason why they haven't been deleted yet? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

and Zahn's Airfield from 12 January... JMHamo (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

AfDed this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I got the rest. -- œ^™ 11:57, 23 January 2014 (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.

Jan 19 to Jan 21st edits deleted

Hi all, It looks like a huge number of edits (including one of mine) were deleted in some way (sorry, don't know the various ways of deleting edits rather than pages) from this page. These were from Jan 19th to Jan 21st. Could anyone explain what that was about? Sorry if there is an obvious way to tell why or who did it, but I can't figure it out to ask them. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The edits were suppressed by an oversighter so "normal admins" (if that isn't an oxymoron) can't tell you why because we don't have the power to read suppressed edits, and oversighters won't tell you why because otherwise that defeats the purpose of oversighting. From a look at the history, it appears that the second comment in #Lee arango me contained a link or information that it was necessary to remove from the entire edit history of this page for privacy reasons - so all the diffs from the time it was added until the time it was removed had to be suppressed so that the link/info couldn't be seen at all. There's no suggestion that you did anything wrong. Bencherlite^Talk 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything Bencherlite says. To expand on a little: this is normal procedure when we need to redact content completely, rather than simply removing it from the latest revision. Deleting every revision containing that content is the only possible way to do this, since we can't edit old revisions — unless a revision is deleted, it will always show precisely the same code. The alternative of not deleting the revision will result in the content still being in the history, so there wouldn't be a point in deleting any revisions in the first place. If you have time and want to read more about it, see Wikipedia:Revision deletion ("RevDel"). Oversighters lost a major ability some time back (they used to be able to get rid of content entirely), but nowadays they're only able to perform RevDel. The only difference between oversight-type RevDel and "normal" RevDel is that the oversighters are the only ones able to undo their RevDel, while normal RevDel can be undone by admins. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly right, Nyttend. Oversighters perform suppression actions, which differ from revdelete actions in that they remove the edits in question from the view of everyone other than oversighters, while revdelete removes them from the view of only non-admins. It's more or less accurate to say that the suppression tool is just the revdelete tool on steroids, but they are different tools. I think what you're thinking of when you say that we lost an ability is old-style oversight, which literally removed the edits themselves from the database, wiping the data, and was not reversible. With old-style oversight, a page history wouldn't even show that an edit had ever existed there (I think. That version of the tool was deprecated well before my time and I never used it). Modern suppression replicates this "nobody can see this content" behavior in a non-destructive manner by implementing oversighter-only restrictions for viewing the content of the edit, rather than the deleting the existence of the edit in page history. With oversight, anyone can still see that an edit was made, but only oversighters can see (or restore) what was in the suppressed portion of the edit (the exception to this is page delete+suppress simultaneous actions, which does not show the "a page with this name was previously deleted" box that a normally-deleted page does). That digression set aside, Bencherlite's response to the original question is correct. To remove the content for an edit that wasn't immediately reverted, we need to suppress all edit history during which that content was on the page. This sometimes results in large swaths of collateral damage, diff-wise, but the "innocent" content is still available on the page itself, just not diffable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. There's no real difference between suppression (which is the "oversight-type RevDel" that I talked about) and "normal RevDel" aside from who implements it, who can read stuff to which it's been applied, and who can undo it — both work essentially in the same way, with the relevant user rights being the only real difference. And the removal of the ability to get rid of material entirely, the old-style stuff, is what I mean about "lost a major ability". Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we're saying the same thing (though I would argue that referring to suppression as revdeletion is likely to confuse people who don't already know the intricacies, so there's probably some value in being explicit). Carry on! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem was that I couldn't remember what it was called; I would have said "suppression" if the term had come to mind. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. I knew it wasn't about me, but I'd never seen that many edits removed before. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If I'm talking about the same thread as you, then I was a party to that discussion and I can confirm that there were a great many links that connected an account here with off wiki personal information, in blatant violation of WP:OUTING. I had suggested they be revdel'd, but in hindsight should have requested Oversight myself. Blackmane (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal request

I would like to appeal a six month ban I was given three months ago. Here is the discussion. The requester cites a dispute on the Shushi article. He says I was ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but I was very active in it. He also claims I was edit warring, but I had only undone two edits, the same amount as he himself, and did not violate the three per day rule or anything that required sanctioning. Also, it was not I who was undoing a consensus, but the requester who was placing his POV edits before the talk was over. I feel the request to ban me was more like a ban for having a different opinion and EdJohnson rushed to place a ban. I think this was a relatively small incident that was reacted to too harshly. Considering almost all of my edits are focused around Armenian topics, most of which aren't controversial, I think half a year is too long of a sanction. Having already spent half the time banned, I want to request it be removed now. I promise I will not do any undoing during my next talk regardless of if the other editor does it or not. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Merging histories

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 need help, because content of the article aeromobil is lost when Draft:Aeromobil was renamed in Klein Aeromobil. It should have first been merged with already existent article, and then removed. The draft was created because I unintentionally posted a copyvio on that page. However, I heard that admins can merge histories, so can you please do that for me? Alex ^{discussion ★} 20:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2014 (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:Mr.Hoseman

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 somebody take a look at this editors single contribution so far. Very unpleasant stuff imho. Thanks. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty hopeless at this, sorry for mislabelling this section. Am now going to notify Hoseman per rules--Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mr.Hoseman (talk · contribs) I reverted their edit but a VOA block seems appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If I knew what a VOA block was, I'd agree with you. Can some sort of immediate discretionary sanction not be applied? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A VOA block = a vandalism-only account block. That's an immediate discretionary sanction for sure which I just applied. only (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. only (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:45, 24 January 2014 (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.

I need the history of a deleted page

I need the history of a deleted page, to work on it and improve it. Please send the history to my mailbox. Where should I ask for? Is it OK to write my request here?--Taranet (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically, the place to ask for this is at WP:REFUND. Rgrds. --64.85.216.191 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @Taranet: A tailored place for such requests is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I suggest you ask for userfication rather than that it be emailed to you. Your request may or may not be honored depending on the basis for the deletion. For example, if it was a copyright violation, it will not be undeleted at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)