Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249

CSD question

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.

---

In considering {{db-g5}} which states "as a page created by a banned or blocked user in violation of his or her ban or block", shouldn't that only apply when the pages were created after the block or ban was imposed and not for pages created by a sock who had not yet been banned? My76Strat (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an example in mind? Note the word 'blocked' as well; any article created by a blocked editor during attempts to violate their block can potentially be deleted if there are no other significant contributors to the article. There's no need to wait until the editor is formally banned. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This IP 149.135.145.45, whom I'll notify spawned my question, The tagged articles were created before any block or ban was placed and may be more aggressive that the criteria prescribes. My76Strat (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be the case - 149.135.145.45 (talk · contribs) is asking that pre-block articles by Dbromage (talk · contribs) be deleted, which isn't the purpose of this particular CSD. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just declined all the CSD nominations. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 18 May 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.

VampireProject's Admin Rights

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.

---

So I would like to request to have administration right on here, it would be awesome if I was one on here and I would be responsible on here and treat it like my own place, I would treat it with respect.

--VampireProject23 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Try WP:RFA and do not add to your user/talkpage/sandbox that you are an admin. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Doing things like this is not going to help you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

The United States Census records

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.

---

Many users use the U.S. Census as the basis for the early life of an individual and even look upon it as a undoubtable source for a birthyear debate. However, there have been some mistakes (both explainable and unexplainable) to which must direct your attention;

• Don Wilson has been credited in 1930 U.S. census as living in California, Donald H. Wilson, aged 30 with his wife Lucy J. Wilson. Originally from Lincoln, Nebraska with his mother being born in Illinois. So far so good? not quite? he was born on September 1, 1900, therefore how could he have been 30 in April, 1930 (the date in which the census officially concluded). Insignificant example? Moving on...
• Janet Waldo, whose birthdate has been declared February 4, 1924, has been listed in 1920 census (January, 1920), as being 8 month old, the 1930 census (April, 1930) as being 10 years old, and in the 1940 (April, 1940) as being 16 years old. All this with her sister Elisabeth Waldo being born in 1919.
• Lauren Bacall, is the most staggering example. According to census records, the actress who has been present at multiple ceremonies and interviews since 2005, has died in 2005.

Therefore pose the question. Are these United States records considered truly a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 May 2013

No, they aren't: See WP:BLPPRIMARY. I see you've started a thread on the same subject at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The United States Census records, and suggest that people respond there - spreading the same discussion over several pages is confusing and may be counterproductive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 19 May 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.

Is this legit?

I have worked with BDD some in the past and happened to see this edit on my watchlist. Is this in any way legit? If so, I don't suppose it's my business, but if not it requires some sort of intervention. Thanks! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, just someone screwing with his userpage. He still has administrator rights, according to This. I've reverted. If it continues, let someone know and we can block/protect as needed. --Jayron32 04:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• You can also check WP:List of administators to verify any admin in the future. When an IP with no previous edits is the one declaring an admin has been bit stripped, it is likely vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• List is good but I've been misled by it in the past -- Special:Log [1] or Special:ListUsers is better. NE Ent 23:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Pop ups is a good tool in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. I was immediately suspicious when I saw that ANY IP editor was declaring someone desysopped, particularly when I knew he was on vacation. I figured this noticeboard was the only place to be sure. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Own userspace pages protection criteria

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.

---

After I requested my user page to be indefinitely semi-protected pre-emptively (no one but myself ever edited it), I was declined by User:Bishonen per WP:UPROT, since there was (obviously) no sign of vandalism on my user page's history, nor a good reason to get it protected (or rather no reason at all). However, I have failed to realise why the following user pages got protected:

• User:Pratyya (was at User:Pratyya Ghosh before recent user rename) (history since its creation); never got edited by a non-auto-confirmed user, still semi-protected indefinitely by User:Mike V on December 2, 2012.
• User:WorldTraveller101/sandbox (history since its creation); only ever edited by the user it belongs to, still semi-protected indefinitely by User:Materialscientist on May 13, 2013.

My question is: why is it that some administrators behave differently from others? It's not that I'm upset why my user page didn't get protected and their did; frankly, I never wanted my user page to be protected in any way (unless it really needed to). But aren't all administrators supposed to behave rationally and all that, following policies and guidelines wherever possible unless their actions reflect broad consensus? Is it not true that User:Mike V and User:Materialscientist's actions I mentioned blatantly violated WP:UPROT? smtchahal^talk 18:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Because each individual administrator is, well, an individual and Wikipedia is an iconoclastic society that values not being a bureaucracy as one of its five highest principles. Rationally, yes, but "lockstep with all the other administrators", no. The important thing to know is that if some IP editing jerks do start messing with your page(s) a responding admin at WP:RFPP will protect it in short order. NE Ent 18:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is true though that the caveat that pages are not protected preemtively is usually interpreted more liberally in userspace. I think the reason for that is that there is almost never a valid reason to be messing with another user's main page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What would you say about the protection of User:WorldTraveller101's sandbox? smtchahal^talk 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, have you asked Materielscientist about it? Sometimes there may be reasons which are not immediately visible....Lectonar (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also note that many admins protect their own pages and subpages rather liberally, often times just because they can. Does having the ability to do it yourself override the need? Why shouldn't an individual be allowed to semiprotect or protect their own pages to eliminate or reduce the potential for vandalism. Is there something being harmed? I would think not. Although the exception to that should be the users talk page unless there is a history of vandalism. Otherwise new editors or Ip's wouldn't be able to comment. Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess non-admins will never really know if they do. The user page of Edgar181 (an admin), for example, has been fully-protected when it has never edited by anyone but himself. But the problem is, that page also has been deleted by himself several times, so we cannot say there has not been vandalism by auto-confirmed users in the past (which should be the only reason an active administrator could fully protect their user page), before the page was re-created the last time. But I think he should have given it a chance, to see if vandalism still does continue after the page was re-created, before just fully-protecting it. User:Bishonen, as you may have already noticed, told me he cannot protected user pages pre-emptively. But is fully-protecting User:Edgar181's user page, even though we don't know if it has undergone some serious vandalism by auto-confirmed users, not a pre-emptive action? smtchahal^talk 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I was typing about that....but I would have said that many admin-userpages are not protected :), although they could do it. Lectonar (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Mine is protected, and I did do it myself, but it was in response to trolling and vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

With the request on RFPP, I protected the page for the user because I felt that avoiding vandalism was considered a "good reason to do so". In most cases, IP edits to user pages result in vandalism, some which targets users in an offensive matter. I feel that this may be a good case to invoke WP:IAR. If protecting a user page to avoid receiving personal attacks makes a user feel more welcome to project, then it's likely that the pros outweigh the cons.

However, this thread may suggest that there isn't a general consensus on whether or not to protect user pages simply at the given user's request. It may not be a bad idea to open up a request for comment to gain a wider range of input from the community. Mike V • Talk 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As a relatively new user, I couldn't agree with you more. Psychologically, it does feel good, especially when your are really new, to know that you can get your user page semi-protected. I think it is a good idea to be liberal with new users. I can't think any reason why this would lead to harm and even if a new user is just worried about user-page vandalism, why not give them a week of semi-protection while they get to understand the community? If a liberal policy helps retain and editor now and then, it is worth it.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Smtchahal came to my page and discussed their concerns first, in case anybody wants to see the prehistory of their query here. I don't have anything to add to what I said there. Indeed, it was I who suggested they might take it here, or else ask Mike and Materialscientist directly, if they wanted to pursue the thing further. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC).

• The whole situation is rather odd. When protecting a page, the dropdown list of options has an option for "protected userpage at user's request". The relevant policy section is vague, saying that pages should be protected on request either because there have been problems or because there is some "other good reason to do so". Basically, the admin who's reviewing the protection request is responsible for deciding whether a request should be considered good enough, and the answer to that question will vary from admin to admin. I tend to be rather liberal in granting protection for userpages upon request; I've done it plenty of times and can't remember declining a good-faith request. To Kumioko — part of the thing is that because admins are responsible for blocking vandals, we often get userpage vandalism. Until I semiprotected it in 2010, my userpage was getting several edits a month from other people, and virtually all of it was vandalism or reversion thereof. Since then, I've had more vandalism at my user talk page (and of course I'll not protect that), but I'm still getting far less userspace vandalism than I used to. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I have requested an RfC on the WP:PP talk page, because I don't think this discussion is going to yield anything. smtchahal^talk 01:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've never rejected a protection request for a user page; to be quite frank, I would not oppose a proposal for them to be automatically FPP'ed, with an exclusion for the user whose userpage it is. User talk page are another thing altogether, but that's not the issue here. What good reason would anyone have to edit another user's userpage? None. FPP would still allow admins to remove problematic materials (spam, attacks, whatever). :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, per Beeblebrox, Mike V and Nyttend, I SPP'ed User:Smtchahal. There is evidently a lack of consensus as to the exact rules about these requests but several admins have chimed in that it is common practice to honor these requests, and I will thus honor this one. I strongly hope there is an ensuing RfC that will firmly establish clearer guidelines. However, I agree with Bishonen's points and am only doing this to resolve this particular case, with the agreement of various other admins. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:27, 20 May 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.

Ștefan Kovács

• Folbal1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Folbal1 user always deletes from information from article of Ștefan Kovács. This informations are related his native nation/citizenship (Hungarian) and his family background. The sources are contains this information. Rowiki also contains it. Folbal1 all wiki works is only four deletion from this article. - Csurla (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So just to be clear here (based on the article's history, etc.): 1) You added content to the article without sources: [2]. 2) Folbal1 removes it, asking for a source: [3]. 3) You edit war with him: [4] and [5]. 4) He writes on your talk page telling you not to add unsourced content: [6]. 5) And instead of discussing it with him on your talk page, his talk page, or (ideally) the article's talk page, you bring him to the administrator's noticeboard?? I suggest an admin closes this thread, and that Csurla reads WP:Bold, revert, discuss and WP:BURDEN. (In any event, if this thread does remain open, it should probably be at WP:ANI...) Singularity42 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's funny! - Csurla (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I rewrite one part of information with realable sources. I wonder when they revert. - Csurla (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He deleted. His all activities in wikipedia is just deletion. - Csurla (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I explained my reason on the talk page and I asked for extra opinions here [7] Folbal1 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't explain nothing. You just wrote: "There is no reliable source about that (in my opinion)"[8] Pls stop the war. You always delete facts from this article[9]. - Csurla (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for two days. If the edit warring continues after that, you can report it at WP:ANEW. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

user:203.62.175.4

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.

---

203.62.175.4 (talk · contribs) is vandalising pages by inserting/replacing/adding different names. [10] Delljvc (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:203.62.175.4, which is currently stale. K7L (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

user:174.118.142.187

174.118.142.187 (talk · contribs) is being uncivil on his own talk page and at Talk:AC/DC (electricity), and accusing me of sockpuppetry without even informing me of that. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - This likely belongs on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The 174.118 IP was engaged in a content dispute on AC/DC (electricity) and AC/DC (disambiguation) involving the scope and title of the former; details are on Talk:AC/DC (electricity). Instead of sticking to the issue (whether AC/DC (electricity) as currently titled includes AC/DC universal motors or should be limited to the now-obsolete All American Five "hot-chassis" tube radio) this user attempted a revert war against me on the disambiguation page and made accusations against me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:K7L_reported_by_User:174.118.142.187_.28Result:_No_violation.29 which were dismissed. The same IP then created a spurious sock report at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/K7L which was speedily deleted as (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: frivolous request). The allegation (made without the required notifications) claimed a Montréal Bell ADSL IP was me even though I'm in Ontario with no evidence presented other than the 65.94 Montréal IP having commented on a few of the same Wikipedia:Requested moves nominations. At this point, this is venue shopping. I did ask the 174.118 Toronto IP to stop here on user talk: but was reverted without a response. 65.94 is also trying to contact 174.118... via that user's talk page and being reverted without reply. This is making direct discussion with this user difficult. K7L (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE I did leave a notice on this user's talk page, but he reverted the edit that added the AN notice. So, the lack of an AN notice on his talk page is not because he was not informed. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like quite a few warnings were removed; including a 3RR on AC transformer here. K7L (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DieSwartzPunkt/Archive, his edits were characterized as "worrisome" -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: The page "AC/DC (electricity)" has been moved to AC/DC receiver design. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Central Time Zone (North America)

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

---

Can an admin close the RM discussion listed here? Seven days have happened and there is a clear consensus. In this case it is needed an admin due to page protection. Thanks Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:16, 21 May 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.

Requested redirect

Requesting redirect of epic fail guy and Epic Fail Guy to Guy Fawkes mask as per that article and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Internet and tech culture.   — C M B J   10:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There are no incoming links to those; what usefulness would they have? In addition, can you clarify what has changed since the most recent consensus that lead to the deletion of the redirect? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable, given the subject's popularity, to assume that users will manually seek out an article at that title. As for the above discussion, it pertained to an inappropriate redirect that lacked any supporting content, whereas this target explicitly mentions the subject.   — C M B J   10:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC) The request to remove the redirect from EFG -> 4chan was based on no mention in the article. EFG is mentioned at the guy fawkes mask article as part of its section on Anonymous usage of the mask, and its origins. The only redirect to 4chan kept in that discussion was one that was used in the 4chan article. No comment on how useful this is to have currently. Although Anonymous is a bit more noteworthy since 2009, I am surprised there is no mention at that article, as while EFG isnt notable in itself as a 4chan meme (there are loads of them) it is relevant to the Anonymous group. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Created. Why couldn't you do it? Is there some blacklist that prevented you? Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't happen to notice what exactly was precluding its creation, but without the admin flag it definitely wasn't happening.   — C M B J   04:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Account with troubling name

WMF Aware Jalexander--WMF 08:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that an account LETMEKILLMYSELF (talk · contribs) has recently been created. My first thought was to {{usernamehardblock}} it without waiting for edits, but I felt the name was sufficiently concerning to bring it here. Any thoughts about what to do? Does this come under the "threats of violence" policy? -- The Anome (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm might help.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Personally, I'd've just blocked and left it. Although that's probably why I'm not an admin.--Launchballer 07:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I've now brought the account creation to the attention of the WMF, per the suicide threat policy mentioned above. -- The Anome (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Hatting so that others know we're aware, thank you everyone. Jalexander--WMF 08:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Blocked for now. Unsure how to proceed. SQLQuery me! 08:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC

I have just opened the RfC on the lead of the Jerusalem article that was mandated by this Arbitration motion. If there are any admins around here that aren't too overworked (yes, I know, we need a pay rise), I would be very grateful if you could watchlist the discussion and monitor it for sockpuppetry and personal attacks. The Israel/Palestine topic area is notorious for sockpuppetry, and my experience at the moderated discussion that led to the RfC has made it clear that the editors can easily slip into incivility, so any extra eyeballs would be most useful. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad Bot

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 one of you good folks have a look into User:ClueBot NG? It's left at least two bad warnings in the last two days at User talk:Eric Corbett. I filed the report here, and left a warning with pings here, but noticed that Cobi hasn't edited since the 6th, and Crispy since Feb. I don't know bot coding; but perhaps one of you good folks could look into this before some good faith editors are chased away improperly and needlessly. Thanks folks. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe User:Cobi is the one to poke, alternatively there's a list of contacts at User:ClueBot NG#Team, I don't think people here would know much about the details of its detection engine. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems it's all down to Crispy though, who as Ched says hasn't edited since 20 February. That's just not good enough. Eric Corbett 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Crispy hasn't edited since 20 February 2011 indeed, which is why I pointed to Cobi who is the owner of the bot and would know how to fix it :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem isn't just that Eric was warned as a new user despite not being one (which is, in thoery, understandable), it's that ClueBot issues rather insistent warnings for alleged vandalism when the edits have nothing to do whatsoever with vandalism. That's unacceptable and I'd support disabling ClueBot until the operator explains or fixes the issue. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Mind notifying the bot owner at least once before starting talk of disabling bots and whatnot? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The bot owner has been notified, but has so far failed to deal with the issue. Eric Corbett 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, by me a few moments ago. Before that, the only notification was on the bot's talk page which is for less urgent stuff, when you try to reach a botop for such an urgent matter, it's worth actually posting to their talk page... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems Ched has decided to unilaterally block the bot. I can't say that I agree, Cluebot NG has a vital role in our countervandalism system and should not be blocked on a whim based on one or two problematic warnings and a report/ping left not more than a few hours ago. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No offense Snowolf - but I blocked it temporarily (with notes to both inactive operators) - and left a note at WT:BAG in the hopes that one of them may be able to look into it. I will follow up on it - it's not like we're offending a "real person" with this - rather we're preventing the "bot" from offending. — Ched :  ?  20:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Fundamentally, bots should not have inactive operators, and when they do they should be canned. Eric Corbett 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)And what you've done is show that you have no clue about this. You've blocked the bot while leaving autoblock on, blocking all of cluenet. You've posted on the BAG page while you can see that a BAG member has been here trying to explain to you how to go about this and expect that BAG does what? We don't have access to the sourcecode or the running instance. And FYI, what you call 'inactive bot operators' are generally people who aren't much active as editors but promply reply to urgent issue. I note that you didn't left a message on the user's talk page before blocking even and merely waited a few hours from your report. All of this and you blocked one of the most important parts of the enwiki countervandalism infrastracture for two lousy mistakes. Please, you're being ridicolous and clueless. I have to remove the autoblock and I will take the occasion to remove the block along with it. This is utterly ridicolous. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  I see Reaper beat me to it, thankfully. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Also, I lurk and fix issues, I just don't edit that often; and I'm in daily contact with Crispy -- I am not unreachably inactive (which is what should be avoided by bot ops). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 01:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whoa whoa whoa guys, Cluebot catches an incredible amount of vandalism much more reliably than human editors. While I get that it's suboptimal for it to be reverting good-faith edits, the warnings to Eric are the first I've seen of Cluebot screwing up in this manner and I question the wisdom of using blocking as a first step here in response to what's basically a single error on a single user's edits, especially without notifying the community to expect a much higher vandalism load in need of manual reverting. This is not a bot malfunction that's breaking articles and needs to be instantly cut off; we can afford to take more than an hour to figure out what's going on and how systematic it is before we just whack a big ol' block (with autoblock enabled, good grief) on the bot. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I echo the above (!) the bot is designed to achieve a 0.1% false positive rate, MF isn't at risk of being blocked and the fact that predictors associated with his new account form a pretty unique situation likely mean the bot is doing exactly what we'd want it to 999 times out of 1000 (this just happens to be the other time) Jebus989^✰ 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever you guys want to do is fine by me .. I took a shot. I agree it's done some great work, but I don't want to lose real people over it either. You folks want to unblock it - then that's fine with me - no objections. Just trying to get a handle on things before we lose real people over a "bot" falsely accusing folks of vandalism. — Ched :  ?  20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• BTW - twice in two days to the same user is a bit more than "an hour" .. but like I say - whatever you think best is fine by me. — Ched :  ?  20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is returning bad information. Perhaps the toolserver DB is broken. This on the other hand seems normal. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd take a stab and guess that it only decided to issue the second warning after Drmies issued a humourous level 3 warning.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• It just shows that what MF (EC) is doing is considered vandalism by an objective observer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  And which objective observer might that be? Eric Corbett 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well to be fair, it was probably caused by you inserting "&nbp;" into an article, which doesn't equate to anything since this was a typo of you inserting a symbol. Since it warned you once before, it probably recognized you as a potential problem editor. Obviously this is in error, but blocking a bot that is not seriously malfunctioning is not the right approach, especially when it's probably the best vandalism fighter we have. It's best just to shrug it off and move on. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, I made a typo, Mea Culpa. That clearly deserves a final warning. Eric Corbett 01:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's slow down and consider the cost/benefit here

Ah.... I wonder what is actually going on here. Just doing a quick survey of the robot's last edits, it seems to be performing normally -- reverting obvious vandalism, and leaving appropriately mildly-worded warnings on the malefactor's talk pages. Except for Eric Corbett.. With him (and only him, apparently?), it's reverting perfectly unobjectionable edits and leaving screaming red nastinesss on the talk page. I have a hard time believing that this is mere coincidence. One theory: the robot has achieved consciousness (we have been warned that this would happen) and is manifesting a darkly twisted sense of humor or a suprahuman trolling ability, or both.

But nevermind about that. The cause is not important. What is important is what's best for the project. I would say that if it's true that Eric Corbett and only Eric Corbett is the victim of this vicious editing jenny gone awry, and considering the extremely important value this machine adds to the project, then... well, you do the math. I did, and have to strongly object to blocking the device on purely on cost/benefit grounds. This is sad for Eric Corbett, but we're making an encyclopedia not running a middle-school girls' tea party. We need to work that this robot does, and it needs to be unblocked ASAP. Herostratus (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UT

User:Reaper Eternal has unblocked ClueBot NG, Cobi said above that the toolserver database seems to return invalid information (edit count etc.) about some users (User:Eric Corbett) which could have caused this. --Sitic (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If it is just Eric, then I'm sure he's quite capable of laughing it off. He's been victimised far more thoroughly over the years than a mere bot can manage. But if this is a symptom of a wider problem of the bot taking a BITE out of newcomers, then the cost dramatically increases well beyond the benefit. In that case, the strong objection to blocking the bot suddenly gets a helluva lot weaker, doesn't it? --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's only me that the toolserver database can't deal with then as you say, that's no big deal. But it's a bit difficult to believe that this issue only affects me. Eric Corbett 21:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of edit count -- the bot chewed a user out for vandalism about edits that were evidently not vandalism; this is what I'd like to see explained. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to the bot, whilst it may appeaer obviously not vandalism to a human, it would probably be almost impossible to programme to bot to distinguish it from similar vandalistic edits.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah put down the pitchforks folks, a number of editors have suggested perfectly reasonable explanations of how the edits could have been mistaken for vandalism, so unless a dev identifies a specific issue with the bot let's, erm, AGF? Jebus989^✰ 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not ready to put the pitchfork down just yet. While I'm sure that in the future we'll all be controlled by spinning whirlwinds of hyperintelligent dust, until that day, the chance of a piece of code putting off a potentially good new editor like Eric, is too high. It's message should at least be toned down until it learns to behave. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The occasional erroneous false positive is to be expected with any neural network system. The libel and defamation that is guaranteed to be inserted into BLPs if ClueBot is disabled requires this bot to be left running. Go through its contributions. Note the ratio of true to false positives is extremely high. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the level four "stop it or else!" message was triggered because Drmies flagged Eric as a vandal with his joke level three warning. It would otherwise have been a level one warning. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, anyone can tone the warnings down. They were more polite, and someone else made them less so. Here are some links:

• ClueBot NG/Warnings/FPReport

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal-common

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal1

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal2

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal3

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal4

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Warning

ClueBot NG/Warnings/WarningData

-- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the CBNG programming and learning, but it saw a brand-new new editor put in invalid html, repeating characters, and make lots of small changes, and got another warning. If this weren't EC/MF, at least some of that might have been reverted by a person. Perhaps the system could be educated to check for certain user-rights, so that a new editor who has advanced rights is not acted-toward like just a new editor. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That is already done. The reason it happened here was because the database knew nothing about the user. This is likely because the toolserver database is broken (see above). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But how can it be broken when I can see my own contributions here? Eric Corbett 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I found the issue -- I typoed the link earlier, this is a good link. As you can see, the user has 368 edits, but 72 edits to their talk page regarding warnings. That puts the ratio at 19.5%. That combined with the sheer number of talk page edits regarding warnings probably causes the bot's ANN to consider it vandalism:

rev_user_text	rev_comment
Bulleid Pacific	/* A rather late warning... */ new section
Malleus Fatuorum	/* A rather late warning... */ no deadline
Bulleid Pacific	/* A rather late warning... */
Bulleid Pacific	/* A rather late warning... */
Bulleid Pacific	/* A rather late warning... */
Malleus Fatuorum	/* A rather late warning... */ whaddya mean, can't convert degrees to metric?
Ckatz	/* Date linking */ reply/warning
Gimmetrow	/* Civility warning */ new section
Geometry guy	/* Civility warning */ Please read my comments on Gimmetrows talk page
Geometry guy	/* Civility warning */ Clarify
Amicon	/* Civility warning */ er
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Civility warning */ reply
Pedro	/* Civility warning */ recent?
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Civility warning */ reply to Gguy
Amicon	/* Civility warning */
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Civility warning */ reply
Gimmetrow	/* Civility warning */
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Civility warning */ nothing more to say for now
Pedro	/* Civility warning */ do not
Gimmetrow	/* Civility warning */
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Civility warning */ reply
Pedro	/* Civility warning */ reply (ec)
Pedro	/* Civility warning */ crucial word!
Pedro	/* Civility warning */ btw
Mattisse	/* Question */ @SandyGeorgia - diff you meant to AN/I where warning was deemed unjustified?
Balloonman	/* Continuation of debate from Malleus's oppose brought to talk as it is no longer about candidate */ final warning
Georgewilliamherbert	/* I really wish you hadn't edit warred with me on my talk page */ civility warning for the sequence on Beeblebrox' talk page. that was not treating other editors with dignity or respect.
Singularity42	/* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ new section
Singularity42	/* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ removed unnecessary brackets
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ because you created the redirect
Singularity42	/* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ okay then
Malleus Fatuorum	/* A warning */ new section
Juliancolton	/* A warning */ cmt
Malleus Fatuorum	/* A warning */ how?
Ceranthor	/* A warning */ $0.02
Malleus Fatuorum	/* A warning */ too late
Chillum	/* Civility warning */ new section
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Civility warning */ fuck off
Fred the Oyster	/* Civility warning */
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Civility warning */ my last word
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Civility warning */ idiots 1 ...
Fred the Oyster	/* Civility warning */
Parrot of Doom	/* Civility warning */ greasy ladder
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Civility warning */ gone
White Shadows	/* Civility warning */ please....
Proofreader77	/* Civility warning */ Time for musical transcendence! ^;^
Richerman	/* Civility warning */ get a life!
White Shadows	/* Civility warning */ way to go
White Shadows	/* Civility warning */ way to go...
Unitanode	/* Civility warning */ oh, goodie!
White Shadows	/* Civility warning */ one last attempt....
80.219.8.3	/* Civility warning */ c
Guerillero	/* Civility warning */
Pride the Arrogant	/* Civility warning */ cmt
Jack1755	/* Civility warning */
Pride the Arrogant	/* Civility warning */ What he said!
Georgewilliamherbert	/* Your behavior */ Turian blocked for 48 hrs for having kept it up past warning
Civility Police	/* A warning from the Civility Police */ new section
Civility Police	/* A warning from the Civility Police */ fix
The Civility Police	/* A warning from the Civility Police */ new section
The Civility Police	/* A warning from the Civility Police */ new section
Malleus Fatuorum	/* August 2010 */ please consider this to be your first warning
Iridescent	/* Your advice please on a possible FA */ The usual warning
Kiefer.Wolfowitz	/* September 2011 */ Posting a "warning" 8 hours after R's clarification was multiply problematic
ThatPeskyCommoner	/* Sockpuppetry */ Only ever as a warning not to tolerate injustice against others
Drmies	/* Donner party */ warning: WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK
173.44.132.114	/* Only warning. */ new section
SineBot	Signing comment by 173.44.132.114 - "/* Only warning. */ new section"
Malleus Fatuorum	/* ANI and Demiurge */ necessary warning
Malleus Fatuorum	/* Your back! */ should be a warning really
Ealdgyth	/* That time again ... */ warning
Drmies	/* Sunbeam Tiger */ fictional warning

This is an edgecase -- apparently the user wasn't renamed, but the talk page was moved, and the user is right on the edge for when CBNG completely ignores them. This would not have happened to a newbie. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked to be renamed, but that was apparently technically impossible. Which once again I don't believe, but there you go. Eric Corbett 01:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've reported a bad edit by ClueBot NG in the recent past. I'm wondering if perhaps it is time to have ClueBot moved to labs and updated to prevent these kinds of issues since toolserver is no longer reliable and causing issues. Technical 13 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The bot is on labs, but labs doesn't have access to the database, so that one script (which is non-critical, but lowers the accuracy of the bot when it doesn't report correctly) is still on the toolserver, and the bot hits that script for the data it needs out of the database. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Labs actually has access to the database as of today, but of course it hasn't been thoroughly tested. --Rschen7754 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ched has my total support on this. Cluebot is clueless. Let's see, Eric makes a typo, bot is unattended and making bad postings/warnings, Ched blocks bot, and Snowolfie rants on Ched? Bat bot, Bad Snowolfie....PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is more damaging though, reverting the false positive and reporting it, or blocking the bot and leaving vandalism site-wide unattended? Eric is far from emotionally scarred from seeing a bot warning. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but his point was that real new users may get unjust vandalism warnings which might put them off of editing altogether. Eric mentioned somewhere that the wording of the level 4 template was a bit strong for his taste--I personally don't subscribe to that since that level 4 needs to be as serious as can be if the previous levels were correctly applied. I'm quite willing to accept that this is a toolserver-related problem, but a. that's above my pay grade and b. Eric mentioned that toolserver, as far as he could judge, seemed to be working--in other words, that explanation does not yet hold a lot of water. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Toolserver – lets better call it toolcluster as it consists of 18 servers – has two database servers for en.wikipedia. It might be that ClueBot and the editcount tool use different database server or the way they request the data is different. --Sitic (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

They do, no question. But then, human editors give out unjust warnings, too; ClueBot is not all that different. Retiring Cluebot would not eliminate unjust vandalism warnings; the number of human-caused warnings would rise, since humans would have to take over all the reversion the bot does (which is a majority of the vandalism reversion on Wikipedia). One important difference is that a human user might have been able to figure out that your joke warning was just that, whereas Cluebot is incapable of doing so. Your joke warning was the only reason Cluebot went to level 4; otherwise, it would've gone to the still-mild level 2. Of course, joke warnings are not a concern for new editors (at least, I really really hope not). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But that's somewhat to miss the point. Neither of the edits I was warned by ClueBot for were vandalism, so why was I warned for something I hadn't done? Has this only ever happened to me? Really? Eric Corbett 01:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Writ said, the chance of an instance of two false positives with an intermediate joke warning isn't very likely to repeat, so this is a pretty rare occurrence. And, as someone who works in WP:ACC, I can safely tell you that there is a reason that we are transitioning this to labs as well: toolserver is frequently borked beyond repair and is unreliable. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So, a false positive has been identified, and the community has made it clear it wants the situation addressed. I think that is enough for the moment, ClueBot doesn't actually make a lot of mistakes and it undeniably does revert tons of vandalism. If the situation isn't dealt with soon we can re-examine the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, not one but two in quick succession, and what we need to know is why. Eric Corbett 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, two, I guess I was thinking of them both as a single error, and I completely agree that we need to know why and the situation needs to be rectified, I just don't think the bot should be shut off while we work it out unless it is making lots of equally obvious errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The errors only affect me apparently, so obviously they don't matter. Eric Corbett 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite the opposite; false positives happen all the time (for a given value of "all the time"; the threshold is set very low to prevent as many false positives as it can), as with any and all automated non-deterministic processes, and the fact that it happened to you is the only reason this is getting even close to the attention it is. The two in two days is a problem, but people are looking into it. To be honest, I'm not really sure what more you want; false positives always have been and always will be a reality of automated vandalism reversion, and we've historically accepted that risk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not buying it. First of all it was a toolserver database problem and now it's the ability of the bot to connect an account that it doesn't believe exists to one that's had a load of warnings over the last six years or so. Do you really think that's credible? Eric Corbett 02:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that someone has mentioned it, moving the talk page over might have been the issue, that does make a bit more sense. I would still like to see some verification that the percentage of wrong guesses is actually 1/1000 or less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG/FAQ#False_Positives and User:ClueBot NG/BRFA -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 01:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Also relevant:

-- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you know how many false positives there are? NE Ent 02:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know this Eric Corbett person -- maybe they're not a Wikipedian or something so the bot doesn't work right from them -- but we're fortunate they're persistent enough to keep editing despite mindless harassment. How many other new editors would have simply said screw it and left? I'd rather have 20 pieces of unreverted vandalism than one editor lost. If the encyclopedia was, you know, finished or something maybe "protecting" it would be the highest priority, but with a quarter million {{unreferenced}} templates I don't think it is. NE Ent 02:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We know exactly how many false positives there are because we profile it against a large corpus of human reviewed edits. I think that is mentioned on those pages I linked above. Also, as I mentioned above, it would not have happened to a real new user. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So how many times will it keep happening to me, or to others in my situation? Or don't we matter? Eric Corbett 02:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Until your edit count is more than 10 times the number of edits to your talk page regarding warnings:

                        if( $change[ 'all' ][ 'user_edit_count' ] > 50 )
                                if( $change[ 'all' ][ 'user_warns' ] / $change[ 'all' ][ 'user_edit_count' ] < 0.1 )
                                        return Array( false, 'User has edit count' );
                                else
                                        $reason = 'User has edit count, but warns > 10%';

However, if you add your name to Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist, it will ignore you. I know it shows that there isn't a list there anymore, but if you click edit on the page, you will see there is still a list. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I really can't be bothered. You initially claimed that I didn't exist on the toolserver database, yet now I apparently do, but I wasn't allowed to rename my account, so now I'm stuck in this pit. Eric Corbett 02:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I said "likely" for a reason -- because I was at work and hadn't had time to do a thorough investigation, and it was the most likely explanation given the quick investigation I did. I've had time to actually log into the toolserver and actually debug it now, and my initial guess turned out to be incorrect. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You can't get "exact" out of a profile. What's your sample size and how is the sample selected? NE Ent 02:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The sample size is half the size of it's training corpus. Something like 40k edits or so. The samples set is selected randomly. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

40,000 randomly selected positives have been human reviewed? NE Ent 02:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, 40-50k randomly selected edits have been classified by humans. We split this corpus into a training set and a calibration set randomly. We train the bot with the training set and then calibrate it by having it score everything in the calibration set. Then we set the revert threshold such that the number of edits which the bot says is vandalism and humans say are good is less than 0.1%. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are the raw numbers (counts?) published somewhere? NE Ent 03:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not since the BRFA (linked above). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, saw the linked section User:ClueBot_NG#Statistics, seeing percentages but not raw numbers. NE Ent 05:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Cobi's explanation for the bot's behavior is correct. The exact theories regarding the bot's operation are public, and how this kind of mistake occurs is clear to those who understand the basic concepts of machine learning. I spent a great deal of time ensuring that the bot is properly calibrated to the specified false positive rate, and it has been properly operating autonomously at this threshold for years. Wikipedia has a large number of relevant articles on machine learning and the specific technologies used in Cluebot NG - if you read them, you will probably have a better understanding of these issues. I would be more than happy to discuss any technical arguments about why Cobi's explanation is incorrect, but it is not productive to say "I think this is wrong but I don't know why", without anything to back it up. Crispy1989 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting all that Cobi, it's nice to see it spelled out so clearly and reasonably. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Comment

I have a lot of pages watch-listed. Very often, the last edit that I see mentioned is a revert by User:ClueBot NG. In those cases, I have never seen a false positive. I have a very good regard for Clue Bot NG. We need ClueBot NG. It is an excellent vandalism fighter, and it doesn't sleep. Blocking the bot is very undesirable. I will add that the comments about Eric Corbett being a new editor are incorrect. Eric Corbett is a very experienced editor. I don't know why the bot went false-positive, except that he made a typo in markup. I have an opinion that the bot should be tweaked so that it never issues a Level 3 or Level 4 warning. It's a bot. Level 3 and Level 4 warnings should be issued by humans. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Under the circumstances, I don't blame User:Eric Corbett for requesting that the bot be blocked. It should not have been blocked, but it should not have issued a Level 4 warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC) In general, the proper response to a mistake by ClueBot is exactly what ClueBot suggests. The specific issue, however, is that ClueBot apparently should not be issuing Level 4 warnings. It appears that this one was just a blunder. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to tweak the language of the level 4, but CBNG does a lot of reporting to WP:AIV/AVB where it is reviewed by a human and then the choice to block or not to block is made. The warnings, as I originally wrote them, never directly accused the person of vandalism, but stated that an automated process has flagged their edit as "possible vandalism". But, as I said, feel free to tweak the warnings. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoever believed that this was a good idea needs to have his bumps felt:

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Hengistbury Head, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted

I don't see any mention of "possible vandalism" there. Surely I'm not the only one ever to have had this rather intimidating warning? Eric Corbett 02:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So go change it, as you have been repeatedly told. SQL^{Query me!} 05:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How many innocent editors do you expect have made around three edits interpreted as vandalism, seen earlier warnings which were false positives, continued going to get the fourth and then given up editing while not getting blocked? I'm almost sure most false positives are given at the 1 and 2 levels, not at the fourth warning. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What's your point exactly? "No problem with the heavy level-4 warning because the ponces ought to have fucked off by then anyway"? Eric Corbett 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that the level 1 and 2 are significantly less harsh than a level four, and less likely to have "scared" someone off. "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to ________ has been undone" isn't harassing to new editors, even if they are false positives. Considering that out of the little number of false positives that there are, that the vast majority are not level four, it isn't as a significant a problem you are making it out to be. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the mean number of edits by editors after false positives, and how does that compare to editors who contributions weren't flagged? NE Ent 02:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Proper"? The reasonable response for a new editor curious about Wikipedia whose early edit gets reverted with would be go do something fun. NE Ent 02:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

While Corbett's case shouldn't've occurred for a number of reasons - Drmies, please read WP:DTTR if you'ven't already - I fully protest against the bot not being allowed to issue level three and four warnings. I've seen a talk page with twelve reminders (level one and two) on it and only one warning (three and four), and if a user is to all intents and purposes 'welcomed' too often, they are likely to view vandalism as encouraged. And besides, the bot is instructed to revert the least constructive 0.1% of edits, so this tells me that vandalism is currently very low, which is fantastic news. I suggest that whenever it issues a level 3 or 4 warning, it chucks out a report on a random active admin's talk page and will tell it to keep an eye on it. Thoughts?--Launchballer 08:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Cluebot's response to EC's edits on Hengistbury Head (which generated the 4th-level warning) is distinctly odd. It reverted a group of 4 edits, done within a couple of minutes: the 3rd edit, at 19:14, introduced a single typo of "&nbp;", which was remedied in the next edit at 19:15. Cluebot reverted the 4 edits at 19:15 (and it's that single edit, the typo, which it cites in its "changed" link). Nothing else within those edits looks capable of being interpreted as vandalism. Does Cluebot pick up instantly on every accidental mistyping of non-alphanumeric characters as potential vandalism? Watch your fingers, folk, and use Preview!

Apart from that, there seem two lessons to learn here:

• Joke warnings are Not A Good Thing and should be deleted lest they confuse a passing bot. (I don't think we can blame Cluebot for assuming that a 3rd warning was a 3rd warning.)
• When Cluebot says "If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again." (my emphasis) it means business. If any of us spot a false positive Cluebot report on a new or inexperienced editor's page, perhaps because Cluebot reverted wrongly on a page on our watchlist, we need to make sure that the false positive is reported and the report is removed from the editor's page. I can well imagine a new editor reporting the false positive but not seeing any point in removing the talk page message, or just being overwhelmed by the rather lengthy message and failing to do anything. Question: Is it acceptable for another editor to remove that false warning, now that we know about its implications? (ie that if the editor continues to make misunderstood but constructive edits then Cluebot will escalate its warnings). PamD 10:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it is. Disagree about the humor thing -- the machines are supposed to serve us, not we them. NE Ent 10:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you can get a machine to tell if someone is joking, let the world know. The complexities of humor make it, after love, probably one of the most confusing human interactions. "Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on The Man in the Moone. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This edit summary was an uncalled-for attack on a well-respected editor. For all you know, it was Drmies who put that comma in there. Please calm down." is a joke but "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Man in the Moone, you may be blocked from editing" is serious. Humans could easily find those identical. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• I think the problem is (though this is really just an educated guess on my part; I don't know exactly how Cluebot works) that Drmies's joke included the HTML comment that Cluebot looks for in a warning. So, Drmies (unknowingly) included the bit that explicitly labels his template as a real level 3 warning, and Cluebot cannot but take it seriously. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Until the machines write the articles I think human editors should have primacy ; if Drmies wants to ignore the bureaucracy and slap a template that will be clearly understood by Eric et. al. as a joke that's actually a good thing. We're not myspace but that doesn't mean editors have to be mindless editing drones with no personality or no interaction. NE Ent 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Man, I am so all for jokes and humor that it's not funny (*rimshot*), but using automated tools and/or templates to do so is not the best of ideas, as they come with other, hidden things that they do that only apply to real warnings. If Drmies had noticed and removed the comment from his post (assuming my guess about Cluebot is correct), there would have been nothing at all wrong about his joke, and there isn't anything *wrong* per se about his joke the way he actually did do it. It's just that this is the result, and you can't really blame the bot for thinking the joke was serious when the joke included a part that told the bot "this is a serious warning". Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem with the lvl 4 warning was, that ClueBot thought EC was a new user. How many ironic lvl 3 warnings are given to new users? There is no problem using the template as joke for users which ClueBot ignores. --Sitic (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, yeah, that too: I mentioned that somewhere already. Who knows where; I feel like there are 5 threads related to this on 5 different pages, and I'm losing track of which is which. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 23 May 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.

Missing image

Hello all, I do not know who to talk to about this. The image File:Sake barrels.jpg is missing, and I cannot locate it. It is three-time featured image of the day and it is simply gone. It is not on Commons that I can find. Does anybody know where I might find it? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The deletion log for the file reads:

16:21, January 21, 2005 Rdsmith4 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Sake barrels.jpg (obsolete)

Does that answer your question? Perhaps an admin could restore it for you if you have a valid reason. :) Cheers! Technical 13 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted in 2005, I imagine because it was moved to Commons. I'm not sure we can retrieve it at this point, maybe a Commons admin could find some answers? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The more likely cause for this missing is:

08:17, 6 May 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Sake barrels.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/packaing violation) (global usage; delinker log)

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The deletion "discussion" happened here. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I left a message for Fastily, asking him to comment. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

INeverCry is an admin on both projects as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Discussion" indeed. I've reuploaded a copy locally after Fastily linked to it from his Commons talk page. If there are potential problems with the image, a proper debate on them can be held here. — Scott • talk 23:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

[ec with Scott] Yes, but my question for Fastily was a request for more information on his choice to delete, not simply a "what got deleted?" question. He says: Did some research, thought about it, and at the moment, I'm inclined to stick with the close unless we get some new evidence regarding the artwork on the barrels. Here's a copy of the image. Is the design on the barrels is copyrighted? If it is, then we can't host it because it's definitely not De minimis. Otherwise, it should be fine for Commons, and I can restore it. -FASTILY 06:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps he's right, or perhaps he's wrong, but I'm not sure, so neither will I ask for undeletion nor will I try to get the locally-uploaded image deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What is a "packaing violation"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming "packaging" violation, where the packaging design would be a copyvio. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps there were images of a man dressed in a packa? That would certain violate many people's sense of decency... :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I've nominated the file for delisting from its FP status; this is because of its size, not because of anything discussed in this section. Please go there and offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File badly captioned.

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – not a local file

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Runyon_Paved_Section.jpg, the caption is bad. There is no Vista Avenue in the city of Los Angeles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It should presumably be Vista Street. See the Google map at 34.1053°N 118.3519°W / 34.1053; -118.3519 for the junction of the paved path through Runyon Canyon Park with North Vista Street. Deor (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, you'll need to take this up over there. (it doesn't appear to be used anywhere either)Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both. I will put the photo back in the article on Runyon Canyon Park and just correct the caption. As for Wikimedia Commons, I try to stay away from that zoo. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

MFD backlog

MFD is backlogged all the way to the 9th. Can we get to work doing some closure here? This one seems like a good place to start. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello? Anyone here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Might take a crack at them later. But highlighting one of your own nominations as something to close first is a bit on the nose, isn't it? Be patient. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"A bit on the nose" it might be (no offense, I for one appreciate TPH's style), but an MfD opened on May 9th, with clear consensus to delete... yes, it should've been closed already. If I wasn't at work I'd do it right away; I'll try to see later tonight if I have time to gun this one down, and perhaps a few others. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's no great mystery why that is still open, admins tend to shy away from mass noms, too much work. However, I have a few minutes right now so I'll take a swing at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle's batch deletion works like an awesome gatling gun. I was about to load some ammo into it but I guess I'm too late. I'll see what other MfD targets I can fire at. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will admit if User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js these 5 scripts were made Vector-compatible, many admins might be more willing to close non-AfD XfD discussions. Any takers? ;) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• With extremely thorny MfDs like this one, I can understand the reluctance, however... :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

IP vandalism

This IP account User talk:187.149.237.103 and its established account it just created moments ago, User:Erik LMG, are being used to vandalize Wikipedia articles repeatedly, blanking large sections of A-Class articles and adding misinformation that's not consistent with corresponding sources. Examples include: Epic (film) where he/she has continually altered the age of a character that originally stated 17 to 21 even though the corresponding source states it as being 17 as shown here [11]; Stewie Goes for a Drive page where he/she also altered information as of relates to the reviews and has blanked large sections for no apparent reason, as shown here [12] and here [13]. I gave the user several warnings under its IP account, but it has followed up by making similar edits now under the Erik LMG account, created just moments ago. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

{{uw-voablock}} implemented. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A question

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.

---

When edits are revision deleted or suppressed etc, and they involve page moves, is there any part of procedure for altering or suppressing the move log entries at the same time? I have a log link which demonstrates the question, but maybe you understand without that (which would obviously involve indirectly linking to a user's contribs here)? Begoon ^talk 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't be done at the same time, but we can do it separately — it's not a one-click solution to everything at once, but unless you're refreshing your browser every ten seconds, you won't catch us in the middle of it. See the deletion log for User:Nyttend/revdeltest — I deleted the page and then used revdel on the log, so you have no way of seeing who deleted it. Meanwhile, if you check my deletion log, you'll see that I've revdeleted the name of another page, User:Nyttend/revdeltest1. Create a subpage in my userspace with the log link, and include a link to my username on the page so that I'll get a notification; as soon as I see it, I'll be able to delete the page, so your message will remain private. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 23 May 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.

CfD backlog

Hi. If anyone has a little time and brainpower to spend, there's a bit of a backlog relating to CfD closures. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ban appeal

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

---

I was topic banned for three monthes on April 11 for edit waring. Ever since, I have been editing articles outside of the ones I was banned from and and demonstrating I can be trusted to eventually return to those topics, as requested in WP:Topic ban. On one of those articles, I even settled the issue on the talk page and didn't revert the article once in the meantime. I now want to request that the ban be lifted. I feel I have learned my lesson and won't repeat the mistakes I made in the past. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: topic bans are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. The edits that TheShadowCrow plans to make are all perfectly fine, and constructive, as is evident from his sandbox page. To be honest, I really do not see any reason to keep the topic ban in place. I would hope that the fellow editors here will show TSC kindness and allow that his topic ban be lifted early, so that he can keep making constructive edits to articles. Truly ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - The first request to have the topic ban lifted can be found here; I don't know why it didn't get archived. The ANI discussion that led to the topic ban can be found here. BearMan998 (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

irellevant text now that the relevant problem has been fixed. Graham87 06:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ahem... it was archived properly to Archive 248, but then vanished into thin air from one diff the other, literally, which is highly worrying to me. The text doesn't appear on the next diff. It disappeared entirely. I mean, what the hell!? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC) That's seriously bizarre. If you click edit on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248 and search for the phrase "Please remove my ban" the content is in the edit buffer but it's not rendering on the displayed page NE Ent 02:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Whoa, fucking hell. I just crashed my entire browser trying to make a null edit. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I'm going to go ahead and blame pagesize for everything, although 700K doesn't seen all that excessive. We could manually split the archive to get it to display properly (see User:Salvidrim/ANArchive248 and User:Salvidrim/ANArchive248bis), but I'm not sure how that should be handled; in addition, the archiving bot should properly be set to have some size limit if high sizes break stuff! I'll leave the tag under here so that hopefully someone will fix things. Once done, remove the template and hat everything under Dennis' comment containing the link to the original appeal. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - At this current time, I do not believe that there is enough history of editing to demonstrate that an early lifting of the ban. I see only a few edits and only recently in the past few days that fall outside of the topic ban. While not a violation of the topic ban, the vast majority of the edits since the topic ban have been in the user's sandbox on the very two topics that are topic banned, Armenia and BLP. Also, a bit off topic but while looking at this editor's recent edits, I would advise that TSC stay away from Azerbaijan related topics such as the one found here considering the user's indefinite WP:ARBAA2 ban. BearMan998 (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - A previous attempt to repeal the topic ban was rejected by the community less than a month ago and I see no way the consensus might've changed since then. There are plenty of other topics to improve, take your pick! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's been over a month. You linked it yourself. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Barely, and I don't see how the extra day changes the essence of my point. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 13:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I feel like this user can contribute to the topics he's interested in. I'd give him a try, why not!? Looks like he has understood his mistake. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A good chunk of the edits since the enacting of the Topic Ban have been related to the topic ban, but in their sandbox. There's little sign of attempting to "get along well" with others throughout other areas of the project - in fact, they had a dust-up recently with an admin related to this very topic ban. This is therefore waaaayyyy too soon to be back in areas where nastiness has a habit of forming to begin with (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bwilkins. No compelling reasons to not let the ban run its course. Bans are not punitive, and they do allow time for reflection on collaborative spirit, and work in other areas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) This is very interesting as I've gone back and taken the time to read your original topic ban and your previous ban appeal. What I notice here is the fact the you have declared and offered any demonstration as to your acceptance and understanding of why you were topic banned in the first place as my reading of the other discussions seemed to have a much more detailed reason than simply "edit warring". I understand how frustrating it can be, but you really need to drop the sticks you seem to be holding. Saying you'll never do it again doesn't fly here if you can't explain and demonstrate understanding of what you did in the first place. Please, I encourage you to withdraw this request, come to my talk page, and have a discussion with me about it. You can always re-open a request later (although after discussion, you may realize there is a better plan). Technical 13 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - for now. Let's wait for a full three months before revisiting. GiantSnowman 13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Withdraw appeal --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:41, 24 May 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.

Viva Movil

Can anybody create it as a redirect to Viva Móvil? I appreciate it. --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is literally 15x more ghist for Viva Móvil than Viva Móvil by Jennifer Lopez, is renaming to the longer less used name the best thing for Wikipedia? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say no, suggest reversion of the move and an RM. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted back with instructions to have a discussion. That article is borderline for notability at this point, although I expect that will likely get fixed with time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Backlog - Requests for page protection

Bit of a back log going back almost 8 hours over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Anyone care to take a look?Moxy (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a backlog by definition, if admins are online and monitoring RFPP, it gets done quickly. If not, then asking on AN won't get you much farther. It'll be done eventually. Chill out! (I guess I should thanks you, TPH and Dweller for prompting me to put my thoughts into words.) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, these sorts of notices are the essentially the only thing I find useful on AN. Wikipedia may be one big backlog, but some backlogs are more equal than others. Danger ^{High voltage!} 12:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Salvidrim, but I'm going to agree with Danger. I have no idea if I am a typical admin, but as I settle into the role, I find there are some things I'm better/more interest in than others, so I tend to gloss over those others. For example, I rarely look at RFPP, although I watch CSD 12 more closely. A notice here that the backlog is older than usual does have a chance of catching my attention.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, it's a userspace essay because it is my own opinion, it is made to be disagreed or agreed with. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

3RR on BLP

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 review the 3rr report on Rob Ford.[14] Ford is the mayor of Toronto, Canada, who has recently received ongoing widespread international media attention after "it was reported that a group of men involved in the Toronto drug trade had attempted to sell a video clip that they claim shows a man, alleged to be Ford, engaged in an activity that has been described as inhaling from a crack pipe." There are discussion threads about BLP issues at WP:BLPN#Rob Ford and WP:BLPN#Rob Ford -Inclusion of non-available video indications that the mayor smoked crack cocaine. The "news" about this only came out 5 days ago.

The administrator found "No violation - BLP"[15] The editor has since re-deleted the text, claiming a 3RR exemption.[16]

TFD (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention (and sorry I couldn't reply to you earlier). Having looked back over the case, I think it is possible that my judgement was wrong in this instance, though at this point I won't commit myself either way. I am happy for another administrator to review my actions and do whatever they think is appropriate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It was fine. We're not a newspaper so there's no need to include "breaking news" if there's any uncertainty as to the reliability of the sourcing. Not admin Ent 10:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I would note that my opinion is that the editor could reasonably claim that BLP applies as it is an allegation of a crime based upon a video of uncertain origin. The NYT, in fact, notes that the content is problematic. I would further note that even under Canafain law, possession of crack cocaine is, in fact, a "crime" so the claim that this does not neer WP:BLPCRIME is iffy. Lastly, that this latest post verges on forumshopping, as all of this has already been fully discussed in two venues. Once a claim has been reoved as violative of WP:BLP it requires clear consensus of the editors to reinstate it - the onus is on those adding the material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur -- continued discussion should be on article talk or BLP thread NE Ent 10:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As someone covering this in real time in real life: this has appeared in many many valid news sources, so it meets the coverage requirements. Does it belong in the Ford article? Yes. How it's phrased is important. Saying "Ford smoked crack on video" is not appropriate (yet). Saying "allegations that Ford smoked crack arose when two major news sources reported that..." or something like that is valid as per the sources. This whole event is so well-covered, there's no way it violates WP:BLP - it will forever be a part of any article about the mayor. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:38, 25 May 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.

Questionable admin conduct

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.

---

During a discussion on the talk page of my friend, admin Drmies, admin Barek advised that I post my concerns here regarding the admin handling of the block of 68.50.128.91. Actually, it's the editor's second block in recent weeks, both involving some of the same admins. Please this message I just posted on the talk page of the blocking editor, Ymblanter, who also gave the first block. Or, see the archived version if the orginal was removed. The other admin involved in the current block was Bbb23, who inexplicably removed a comment I posted on IP 68's talk page after the block. I requested that he please restore it but not only did he not do so, he didn't even reply to my request. As I noted in in my message to Ymblanter, you can read this related discussion on Drmies' talk page for good context about this situation; the discussion about IP 68's block begins in the fifth comment. Or you can see the archived version if the original is gone. Obviously, Drmies did his best to stay neutral in the matter since he is friends with both myself and the admins involved. I hope that anyone interested will carefully review all of the edits and sanctions by the participating admins to see if their reasons for those sanctions are verified by any diffs or policies. You'll find that some are, but some most certainly are not. It's very easy to claim that an editor did something wrong without providing anything to support it. My only goal here is to simply make editors aware of this situation. If something can be done to undo any of the improper actions taken and prevent problems like this in the future, fine. That would be nice, but I'm certainly not expecting it to happen. At the very least, I wanted this matter on the record. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like fairly standard Admin Behavior...nothing too crazy here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Comment from uninvolved editor) I just love reading about ZOMG!... LOL Thanks, I needed the laugh. Technical 13 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Tecnical, I would ask that you remain civil, particularly since you're currently on your last chance for disruptive editing. I don't mind, or care, if anyone disagrees with my thoughts. But posting an immature comment is unnecessary and certainly doesn't help your credibility. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I'm not sure how you construe my comment above thanking you for making my day a better one as uncivil. That kind of response from you seems fairly WP:BATTLEGROUNDish to me. Good luck with your complaint as I've nothing further to contribute here. Technical 13 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll let your comment ("Thanks, I needed the laugh") speak for itself. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

May I comment about this, guys? I will not be especially civil nor am I completely uninvolved, and I’m not a sysop, but I am a… rather experienced Wikipedian. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Incnis Mrsi's desire to comment here, I would direct you to this discussion he had a few days ago with Drmies, or this one on Toddst1's talk page, to clear up any questions about his motives. Hopefully, we can stay focused on the reason for this discussion. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not immediately sure what I am expected to say here beyond my response on my talk page (that there is no cabal, at least no one I am involved with? that I do not believe that my actions disgrace Wikipedia? whatever), but may be a quotation from WP:INVOLVED would be in order here: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, <...> is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you traded reverts with the IP just minutes before you blocked him. Further, you did it after you knew there was already an edit war starting. It also appears perhaps that you may have been following him, even though the two of you obviously had a very contentious history. Even admin Barek said your block was "procedurally inappropriate". Like him, I'm not at all saying IP 68 didn't deserve to be blocked for some period of time - in fact, Barek thought it should be longer - but the point is that you most certainly were the last admin who should've done it. You also have not acknowledged shouting your block at IP 68 in your edit summary. So rather than trying to defend your actions with what I consider to be, respectfully, a very weak argument, it would be appreciated if you would simply admit your mistakes and pledge not to do it again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. I was not the first user who reverted 68* disruptive edits and not the last one. Disruption was going on in this article and its talk page for weeks, and that was 68* edit warring against everybody else. After reverting them, I immediately went to their talk page and advised them what they should do to advanced their cause. Instead, they have chosen to revert my advise (calling it either trolling or harassment, I do not remember) and continue edit warring. I just can not be involved in content, since I have never edited this article except for this only revert which was an administrative action (to stop edit m warring and avoiding consensus) and reverting them several times on the talk page (where they were persistently reopening a closed request, avoiding consensus), and in fact I have absolutely no interest in the article and I have no idea who Robert Bell is. I suggest that an uninvolved administrator will give an opinion on whether my behavior was appropriate, because I have already heard your opinion several times, and I do not really agree with it. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point. You have been actively involved in a negative way with this editor, including in that article. If you thought he should be blocked, fine, then you should've let an uninvolved admin do it. And you can bring up all the inappropriate actions by IP 68 that you want, but it completely misses the point of why we're here. I'm not defending any of IP 68's inappropriate edits, and you and many other editors know it. His talk page will clearly show that. Unlike you and some other admins, I've shown him respect and did my best to try and calm things down, rather than escalate them. This matter is about admins conducting themselves appropriately, especially when things get heated. And even more so, when it involves an edtior with whom you've already had ongoing contentiousness. You as an admin need to be the "bigger" person in these situations and not take relatively minor things so seriously or so personally. And you need to avoid even the perception of impropriety when you use your tools. I will say that you seem like a nice person and I do respect your decision to comment here, which of course you had no obligation to do. But it would be nice if you'd simply say that you wish you had stayed out of this block altogether and just let someone else handle. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, <...> is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Thank you for reading this carefully.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your contrib history or experience but this is not a situation where the Sysop would be restricted or even discouraged from instituting a block and there is ways that the person blocked can still appeal their block even with talkpage access removed. In my own opinion this is not anywhere even close to innappropriate Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you already presented that quote, so showing it again serves no purpose. I told you that I think it's a very weak argument, especially considering the fact that you just admitted that you knew "Disruption was going on in this article and its talk page for weeks". Yet you inexplicably decided to participate in that little edit war that you knew was happening, and knew it involved the editor you've had a conentitious relationship with for weeks. Many editors are fully aware of the history between the two of you. Are you saying that Barek is wrong when he said your block was "procedurally inappropriate"? Are you defending your shouting edit summary at the IP about the block? I'm really starting to get concerned about your ability to handle issues like this. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hell, that means you also disagree with Barek's comment. And that's fine. But he's been in the admin trenches for a long time and editing for seven years. It is very admirable to see an admin like that recognizing the impropriety of Ymblanter's participation in this block. And certainly, Bbb23's decision to protect IP 68's talk page as he was inexplicably removing my comment there, was also highly inappropriate. Unless there is come clear policy violation, censoring another editor's talk page is nothing short of outrageous. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The crux of the problem here is 76's crusade regarding WP:BLANKING and his role as a policeman of administrators who take actions he does not agree with. Even if it didn't start out that way, 76's editing has become disruptive and troll-like in its persistence. Worse, it has shifted the focus from 68's repeated misconduct to the administrators who are trying to prevent it.

68 has been blocked repeatedly, all within less than 2 months. He has been blocked by Kubigula, Ymblanter (twice), and Barek. After one of the blocks, 68 behaved inappropriately on his talk page. That seemingly was beginning of 76's involvement when he created this topic at ANI regarding BLANKING because Ymblanter had revoked 68's talk page access. 76 created a firestorm, and Ymblanter restored talk page access (in my view, that is the only "mistake" Ymblanter has made in this sorry mess). I don't want to get into the disagreement among admins as to how BLANKING should be interpreted, but let's just say that many disagree with what is removable and what is not, and many enforce BLANKING differently.

Then 76 took it upon himself to encourage/support 68 on 68's talk page in a seemingly endless discussion about - well, it's not clear what it was about as it kept shifting because of refactoring of the talk page. 76 has edited 68's talk page 35 times. Remember, we have a blocked user, and that user should be able to use their talk page to discuss the block and to provide reasons why they should be unblocked, not engage in some sort of disruptive campaign to make reviewing admins' jobs that much harder. 76 made it 10x worse.

In addition to going on and on and on at 68's talk page, 76 has posted on many other talk pages. Much of it has to do with BLANKING, the block of 68, administrative action, perceived insults, and I don't know what all. He has put admins in different camps - there are the good ones and the bad ones. And they shift every once in a while. I am currently in the bad camp. I have been in the bad camp before. But during one short period I was in the good camp. It essentially depends on what you've said most recently (agreeing or disagreeing with 76).

Ymblanter did nothing wrong. I wouldn't have even posted here if it wasn't for the accusations against Ymblanter. I don't much care about the accusations against me. I removed 76's comment from 68's talk page after the last block, not based on its content, but because I didn't want the same thing to start over again. 76 has wasted enough of everyone's time with this, and it was time to bring it to a halt.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Right.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You wanted so say, 76 has posted on many other talk pages? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Close Unnessecary pot-stirring by anonymous editor. Nothing actionable. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 16:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bbb23, if you feel that attacking my editing is your best approach, no one can stop you. But I would invite anyone to read the "May 2013" discussion that Bbb23 is talking about. Editors can certainly decide for themselves what's going on, rather than relying on Bbb23's interpretations. Please note Bbb23's explanation for removing my comment: "I removed 76's comment from 68's talk page after the last block, not based on its content, but because I didn't want the same thing to start over again." What does that even mean? He gives no explanation of what the very vague "the same thing" even refers to. The "same thing" as in having a discussion? His removal of my comment after the block is called censoring, pure and simple. Everyone is welcome to read my comment for themself. Bbb23, please provide any diffs that show any comments I made on that page that violatee any rules. It is of course no surprise that some are trying to change the focus from admin conduct in this block to my editing history. I'll stand by Drmies' much-appreciated comment about me a few days ago as being "a valuable contributor". --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 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.

More DI requests

These have fallen off the backlog counter, so they're practically invisible:

• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 26 April 2013
• Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 22 April 2013
• Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 21 April 2013

I know that the latter two have a request for extra time on them, but its been more than a month since tagging / 3 weeks since time request. Could an admin please deal with them? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Request Review of What Appears to Be Personal Attack

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 request that an uninvolved administrator review a personal attack by User:Peterzor on Talk: Soviet Union. It will probably be necessary to view the history of his talk page because he blanks his talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

diffs please. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=556596468&oldid=556595902 Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I came here by mistake. I meant to go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I clicked the link - I see no personal attack. Saying someone is lying might be very slightly uncivil ... but certainly not AN- or ANI-worthy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need for admin intervention at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've posted some information regarding my problems with the same user to the thread at WP:ANI. -- Dianna (talk) 00:24, 25 May 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.

Standard offer for User:A.K.Nole

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.K.Nole (talk · contribs) is a community banned user and a prolific sock-puppet who has had a long running campaign against User:Mathsci. Following a discussion on WT:WPM the user has undergone a change of heart and now wishes to pursue the WP:Standard offer. He was banned following this discussion at WP:AN, but has since then used many sock-puppets covered by the User:Echigo mole SPI case archive 1 archive. The issue has recently been brought to a head at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#J-structure and the standard offer was proposed at User talk:Johnuniq#Standard offer. The user has indicated willingness to accept the offer there and also apologised for past actions[17], [18], [19], [20].

The draft offer is

1. Wait six months, without sockpuppetry.
2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

In particular case part 2 is

2.1 Avoid all interaction with Mathsci, including commenting on his activity

2.2 Avoid editing in the topic related to Jordan algebra

The exact nature of the topic restriction is to be determined and may be wider than above. I've asked the mathematical community for input here.

My view is that following the standard offer is a better option than the very disruptive cycle of sock-puppetry.--Salix (talk): 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• So, the most important provision of the standard offer is that the user in question go away completely for about six months. Unless and until they actually do that this discussion is premature. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that might be the best way to do things. Discuss the details after the user has shown willing by waiting six months without editing.--Salix (talk): 21:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely no way he ever gets to return under that username. Under any other circumstances, seeing it editing again I would have immediately indefinitely blocked it. If he's genuine, I guess the username issue could be sorted in six months time. CIreland (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point at the moment, but what exactly is wrong with the username? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This user and his sock drawer have a history of harassment that pre-dates his pursuit of Mathsci. The name A.K.Nole was chosen because it is Elonka in reverse (see also his earlist contributions at Simutronics, her employer). There was a whole bunch of other shenanigans back in 2009 (see the ANI archives) and at the time I, and probably most other people, just thought it was a couple of university kids screwing with us. Now, after four years of harassing Mathsci, I would give a less charitable assessment. CIreland (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think that six months and Jordan algebra are important conditions, but his use of only one account (and no IP socks) must be a condition. Even before being community-banned, this person abused multiple accounts to evade scrutiny and persecution. It was his WP:sockpuppetry which caused the site ban, not his conflicts (which could otherwise be mitigated with appropriate sanctions). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that a clear time-interval needs to pass to mark a clear break and to show the community that he is serious and willing to pass part 1 of the offer. I'm not particularly hung up on six months.--Salix (talk): 13:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems possible that some accounts that have been recently blocked as sockpuppets of Echigo mole are in fact sockpuppets of another user. If it is really the case, one should not exclude that sockpuppetry continues even if A.K.Nole respects the conditions of the standard offer. Thus some care is needed to avoid to unduly ban him again. I suggest to ask him an exhaustive list of his recent sockpuppets. If some banned sockpuppets do not appear in this list, checkusers could check these accounts again to identify another sockpuppeter, if any. D.Lazard (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

He has said that there has been some false positives in the SPI's [21] but has not identified any.--Salix (talk): 13:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• To make things specific the non interaction part includes should include not tagging any articles by Mathsci with {{notability}}, {{prod}} etc.--Salix (talk): 13:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I would strongly oppose any unblock for A.K. Nole at this time. 3 days ago, we had confirmed socks of Echigo Mole appear, with them being blocked today - and not all of those confirmed ones have been owned up to. There are so, so many of the past socks that A.K. Nole hasn't owned up to either. In fact, it would be a very, very long time before I supported any unblock - probably a couple of years. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• No indication at all, given his recent activity, that A.Nole/Echigo mole has reformed in any way whatsoever. The sockpuppets have hounded my edits in the usual creepy Echigo mole way and have attempted to add similar content. They lack the intellectual skills, since they have no training in the specialist areas of mathematics in which I work. Their editing in May alone, lying in unblock requests (as Boodlepounce, Hyperbaric oxygen and Ultra snozbarg), indicates that no statements they make can be taken in good faith. The most serious abuse has involved trolling during arbcom cases or on arbcom-related pages. Here's one example of their abuse of arbcom pages.[22] Just pure malice. Echigo mole/A.K.Nole, with over 260 socks and IP socks, has engaged in long term abuse and all his contributions, including his mindless mathematical trolling, have been unconstructive. There is no reason at all for an unblock of this community banned user whichever old accounts he attempts to resuscitate. Just too much lying and malicious editing. (I was not able to follow this latest development because from 22 to 25 May I was unexpectedly in intensive care at my local hospital.) Mathsci (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Timing is important here. A.K Nole apologised the mathsci at 16:00 UTC, 24 May 2013[23], apologised on WT:WPM at 16:29 UTC, 24 May 2013 [24] and formally agreed to the offer at 19:22 UTC, 24 May 2013[25], the only edits under A.K.Nole (talk · contribs) since then have been clarifying past socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.K.Nole with the last edit at 16:36 UTC, 25 May 2013. The last known sockpuppet edit was 20:47 UTC, 23 May 2013[26], before the apology and change of heart. Clearly sockpuppet edits after 24 May 2013 would show a breach of the offer. We do need to see a longer period without socks before being accepted back.--Salix (talk): 06:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We do. He was banned. He had socks three days ago. As somebody who is a clerk at SPI, and has acted repeatedly on the echigo mole case I see no reason to believe a 20 hour period with no socks and an incomplete list of socks he has utilized is anywhere near adequate for an unblock. He's recently attempted to be more subtle in his sockpuppetry, but the recent socks were confirmed. Granted, there is no harm in opening a discussion but I think at this point, he's pretty much just a sock of echigo mole, and although I might be missing something I'm extremely strongly opposed to the standard offer, on the basis that there is still some manipulation going on, and the requisite time hasn't been met. If somebody apologizes, and a couple months later tries to come back, I can see overruling the six month guideline for standard offer. What we have here is under a day from somebody who really has continued to try and be disruptive, without, as far as I see it, a convincing apology. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART not possible for Echigo mole

Echigo mole/A.K.Nole has a history of dishonesty and lying on wikipedia. A.K.Nole was not their first account which on their own admission was Eumolpus (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Another blocked sockpuppet account predates the A.K.Nole/The Wiki House account. The main problems with Echigo mole have been (a) attempted outing, including the creation of usernames made from my address in France as well as edits where he knew my identity and revealed it in a series of clues to others and (b) disruption of arbcom cases through sockpuppetry. He intervened in multiple cases (Abd&WMC, R&I and the subsequent review as well as many other cases, AE requests, requests for amendment and clarification). A motion was passed by arbcom because of the disruption he caused.[27] As an example of Echigo mole's conduct this week, he revived an old sock Ultra snozbarg (talk · contribs · logs · block log) to make two unblock requets, claiming to have no relation whatsoever with Echigo mole. But that was a blatant lie, because as Euston arch (talk · contribs · logs · block log) he had incubated a hoax article in his sandboz about Snozbarg with wikilinks to two other now-deleted hoax articles created by Echigo mole socks.[28] He has given a partial list of sockpuppets, some of which have already been detected by checkusers. But some obvious socks such as Captain Abu Raed (talk · contribs · logs · block log) he has chosen to omit. So this is somebody who has blatantly lying this week, who has created a huge amount of disruption on arbcom pages and who has a history of wikihounding. As Quotient group (talk · contribs · logs · block log) he privately gave assurances to Shell Kinney that he would turn over a new leaf and stop following my edits. He did eventually admit to Shell Kinney that Quotient group was an alternative account of A.K.Nole (Elonka written backwards). But his promises to change did not last very long. He edited as Junior Wrangler (talk · contribs · logs · block log), Zarboublian (talk · contribs · logs · block log), Julian Birdbath (talk · contribs · logs · block log), and all the other socks. This is simply WP:LTA. He has now admitted to writing the hoax articles on Aix-en-Provence, which were obviously by him. No reason at all to extend any good faith whatsoever to someone with an established reputation for lying and malice. It is the problems with his edits on arbcom-related pages and his attempts to create disputes which show that Alex/A.K.Nole/Echigo mole has no interest whatsoever in building an encyclopedia. This wish to act as some social care network for an obvious disruptive user is misplaced. After 4 years of harassment and lying, an apology is not how this is resolved. At this stage having lied through his teeth as Ultra snozbarg and other sockpuppets, Echigo mole has burnt all his bridges on wikipedia. To me this is another stunt like the unblock requests. Even Salix Alba must realize that editing higher level mathematics articles requires some training (e.g. a Ph.D. in a specific area). Echigo mole tried to fake it and it was obvious. They created the hoax articles Guozbongleur, La Maison du Guozbongleur, Gustave de Zarbouble and Robert de Baldoque. There were others (e.g. in The Bulldog, hoax articles on Letchworth and Baldock, etc). Plus an attempted arbcom request[29] as Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · logs · block log). All of this combined just points to WP:NOTHERE, multiplied by a very large factor. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 26 May 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.

IP vandalism

Several users have now warned IP user 108.237.154.137 about blanking material on pages, but user persists in doing so. The account is only being used for vandalism. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• This belongs at WP:AIV--except that I don't see how it is vandalism. The article is a BLP, and the reference given says that that person said on Howard Stern's radio show she was going to sue the other person. For now, that's nothing but an announcement at best, and we're not a tabloid. I'm about to sign off, but I am going to fully protect the right version (the one that is demonstrably NOT a BLP violation) for 24 hours and will place a note on the BLPN board. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• And I don't mind that protection being lifted after due consideration of the content and the references, not at all. I'd rather not protect in the first place; this is an ad-hoc measure dictated in great part by the clock. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone inspect the page protection move instated by Drmies above on a disruptive IP's edit? It was consensus among several different editors now that this IP has been disruptive in removing sourced material repeatedly and without any explanation on their end, as shown here at their talkpage, 108.237.154.137, where he/she has been given several warnings by different editors and here where he/she is reverted by several different editors [30].

IP has failed to explain his/her repeated page blanking of information and wouldn't even communicate with other users, but Drmies has protected the page on the IP's edit. Information above stated exactly what was in The Huffington Post here and a the television news web site, which was that a lawsuit had been filed. As per WP:BLPSOURCES, the only time information should be removed is if it is coming from a questionable, unreliable source which none of them were. Huffington Post articles and television news articles have been used to support a multitude of information here at Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention I had a past dealing with above page-protector, user Drmies, in which a large debate broke out over what I and others considered to be abuse of his administrative tools, as shown here. Not long ago, I questioned the admin as to why he had closed an administrative noticeboard issue after it was presented that an offending party had used the n-word for no apparent reason. And with no repercussions for the offending party might I add. That's when an entirely different user had come along and reported that they too had issues with Drmies where race was concerned and flat-out accused him of racism within that same debate here [31]. I chose in that situation to be the bigger man and not follow up on my complaints against Drmies with others who took issue with his questionable behaviors where race was concerned, but now as it seems he might be engaged in petty, vindictive acts in defending what is clearly a disruptive IP, I might have to follow up on the complaints against this admin. AmericanDad86 (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this was a BLP violation. In the interview with Omarosa Manigault that all the available sources seem to be based on she says that she is going to sue Jackson, clearly using the future tense. The article claimed that Jackson had been served, which the IP disputes [32] and the sources do not actually confirm that Manigault went ahead with the lawsuit. January (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:1.249.238.236

• 1.249.238.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user has made hundreds, if not thousands of disruptive edits to NASCAR-related pages. Example: 2003 NASCAR Winston Cup Series. I request that their edits be reverted and that they are blocked, because it will be a tedious process removing all of their edits. SteelMariner^Talk 00:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted all the disruptive edits. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics

Resolved by motion:

In his evidence submission to this case, Apostle12 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) stated he is immediately retiring from editing Wikipedia:

This will be my last submission. I have decided to place a "Retired" notice on my user page and scramble my password, thus tendering my resignation

Apostle12's conduct was a substantial part of the present arbitration case (Race and politics) and hearing this case in Apostle12's absence would serve no purpose. The committee therefore resolves that:

1. The present arbitration case is suspended for two months (from the date this motion passes).
2. If Apostle12 returns while this case is suspended, arbitration proceedings will resume.
3. If Apostle12 does not return to editing before two months have elapsed: he will be indefinitely prohibited from editing any page relating to "race and politics", broadly construed; and this case will be un-suspended and closed.
4. Apostle12 is directed to inform the Arbitration Committee if he returns to editing the English Wikipedia using any account.

Apostle12 (and all of his accounts, if he has created one or more others at that time) may be indefinitely blocked by any uninvolved administrator if he violates the prohibitions in points 3 or 4 of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

PC RfC 2013

The community at large should be made aware of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013, either by sitenotice or through bot notification of all past participants. WP:CD is insufficient given both the established controversy and scope of discussion.   — C M B J   11:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's already being advertised through a watchlist notice. That's usually the highest level of advertising we give policy discussions - I can't remember one being advertised by sitenotice. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked the revision history of Sitenotice and you're evidently right in that there haven't been any policy discussions published through it, although its talk page is home to a a very similar exchange. However, I do recall that the original PC RFC had over 650 participants and the SOPA RFC had more than 1,800 — and I could've sworn that at least one of those two received advertisement to all logged in users. In any event, I'm still inclined to stick by the suggestion that past participants be notified if nothing else, though in all fairness the debate's (affirmative) ramifications are pertinent to virtually all users.   — C M B J   13:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the problems with the SOPA rfc, not so sure thats a good idea. Given its irregularities. It would be better not to have a repeat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• During big policy RFCs I have put together, including the 2011/2012 PC RFCs it was made clear to me that a policy change that effects every single user on Wikipedia is not sufficiently important for the sacrosanct site notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a not-unreasonable fear that over-using the sitenotice will limit its effectiveness. But this is kind of a big deal, isn't it? Hrm. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think deciding whether or not to use one specific facet of PC is a little bit less of a big deal than deciding if we were going to use it at all, and those discussions were deemed not to be important enough. As I recall I tried to make the point that a watchlist notice does not reach the IP users who would be affected by PC but that still didn't cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. For all the fire and brimstone pending changes and even protection in general aren't a big deal to most people. Most editors and most readers go on their merry little way without running into much protection, especially not protection that PC2 will affect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this discussion is anything close to important enough for a sitenotice. Sitenotices are normally displayed to readers unless you take steps to limit it to logged-in users only. We might want a sitenotice up to announce WP:VisualEditor and WP:Flow, but "shall we occasionally use this particular detail of this particular feature" isn't IMO even close to important enough to put something in front of non-editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which ... we'll need at least one more closer, and two would be nice. This may run until June 17, though the proposer has proposed ending it sooner: see User_talk:Theopolisme#Closing PC/2 RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

History merge request

Resolved

Please merge the history of User:Acdixon/Political career of John C. Breckinridge into Political career of John C. Breckinridge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Something went wrong. I don't think the current version of the article is the featured version. What happened?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hm, looks like it doesn't automatically revert to the latest diff when you merge, but instead to the latest diff of the version that was merged in (in this case, the userspace version). Anyway, easily fixed, and I see another user has done so. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There was nothing wrong, it's just that Black Kite forgot to revert to the latest version after performing the history merge. The act of page moving places the last revision of the old page in the latest revision of the target page, so you need to undo that revision to have the actual latest revision of the page. I've now done so. Also note the mismatch in the number of bytes added and removed in the page history - this is also something peculiar to history merges, and not an error by Black Kite. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was aware that I could have simply reverted to the FA version, but I was not sure if there were other related things that needed to be done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Need some assistance

File:User Simon Alexander Tolhurst.gif is a non-free file of a user that they uploaded. It has been tagged for deletion several times as failing WP:NFCC can an admin please delete this? Werieth (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, the user clearly doesn't understand the concept of copyright, and also this is possibly the most unreadable user talk page I've ever seen. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ive gone ahead and commented out the offending template that was the source of the obnoxious user talk page. It was preventing users from reading diffs on the talk page. Werieth (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

editing a protected page

Template:FOXNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) needs to be removed from The Cleveland Show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I'd normally be willing to do at a protected page, but it looks as if the protection is related to the issue of removing the template. Let's wait until protection is over or until you get consensus at talk. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that was one of mine. I protected it because there was edit warring over whether the show was cancelled, but there had been no official announcement from Fox. If there's been an announcement, then I can just remove the protection, but if not it's probably just going to lead to more edit warring. If there are any unrelated and uncontroversial edits that need to be made, they can be requested on the article's talk page using {{edit protected}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Is User:Tomcat7 overstepping

Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) and I have been warring over the inclusion of templates about 6 novel at Fyodor Dostoyevsky. In order to get a consensus, I brought the issue to WP:NOVELS. I opened Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates on May 4. Subsequently, 2 people agreed with him that the templates should not be included and 4 agreed with me and one respondent was sort neutral with a case-by-case basis response. Following this discussion on May 7, he has removed the templates from Fyodor_Dostoyevsky. Tomcat7, has proclaimed that this result is meaningless because it is 1.) a few users, 2.) a "wikiproject talk page, instead on a talk page of a policy or guideline" and 3.) templates for an author's works are unrelated to the author.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• If that is an accurate representation of their argument, it's a very mixed bag. Item 1. could be valid but is not; this is not "a few" editors. They could argue it's not an overwhelming consensus, I suppose, but again, this is not "a few" people. Item 2. strikes me as completely irrelevant; the talk page of a project is precisely where such content (structure, style) discussions should take place. Item 3. belongs in a content discussion--like the original discussion Tony pointed to. FWIW, I'm the one participant in that discussion who's sort of in the middle. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything short of WP:3RR warring that will get some third party responses here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Make your case, succinctly, on the article talk page first, methinks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems like odd advice for two reasons: 1.) only 1 of the 7 discussants at WP:NOVEL thought that this issue was one that should be handled on a case by case basis. and 2.) It seems counterproductive to try to argue this issue on each author's page as conflicts arise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

From my participation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Review_shopping, it is my understanding that User:Tomcat7 has a reputation for taking inappropriate actions if he does not get his way. If people feel that his action in response to feedback at Dostoyevsky were inappropriate, it is very likely a part of a larger problems where an editor creates a lot of trouble for the community when decisions don't go his way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted Tomcat7 and left my rationale at Talk:Fyodor_Dostoyevsky#Trying_to_avoid_a_brewing_edit_war.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger appears not to have informed Tomcat7 of this WP:AN entry. I have done so. It seems to me that the discussion at WT:NOVELS has not yet reached consensus, so it is not appropriate yet to insist on any one approach for the Dostoyevsky article. There should be an RfC about the whole issue (in general, not about Dostoyevsky alone). The personal attack and threatening behaviour in this could perhaps also be addressed. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • RFC is open.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oversighting an impostor's block log?

I recently looked to see if someone created an account where the username is my own first and last name. What I discovered triggered my memories from 2007, back when I was a freshman in high school, when some troll, who attended the same school as me, created a lot of sockpuppets to troll Wikipedia, and used my real name as a username for one of his accounts; I look up "User:firstname lastname" (censored my actual name due to privacy concerns) to discover that while the userpage does not exist, it shows that account's block log where the account was blocked in February 2007, a month before I joined Wikipedia myself (in fact, back when I didn't have much privacy concerns, I was originally going to use my real name in a firstname-lastname format as my username but it was taken so I signed up as lastname-firstname for a couple months before having increasing privacy concerns to the point that I had a bureaucrat change my name to NHRHS2010; subsequently I became aware that this troll used my firstname-lastname as a username for one of his sockpuppets). I didn't know what was going on, but during the same period of time, I was frequently getting bullied in school. Little did I know that I would have an impersonator here in Wikipedia! Due to an increasing concern that people would look up my name on Wikipedia, would it be possible to request oversight for the block log of that impersonating account? Thank you. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 01:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole user can be hidden, but you will need to contact Wikipedia:Requests for oversight privately. --Rschen7754 01:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I emailed User:Oversight as that page directed me to do. I just wanted to make sure if oversight was possible in such a situation. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 01:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] See the "I missed that day at target practice" section of WP:STOCKS. It's apparently possible to oversight a very very active account, so a short-lived troll shouldn't be hard. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I joined Wikipedia on March 2007 and I heard words that this person started trolling around October 2006 and disappeared around Christmas 2007, at least it was not directed at me but it annoyed a lot of admins and other legitimate users; subsequently I've had to deal with other trolls on Wikipedia and YouTube, several of them directed at me, most notably a group of trolls on YouTube who would refer me and my friends by the WWII dictators' names (I was referred as "Hitler", one friend was referred as "Stalin" while the other was referred as "Mussolini"). I was concerned that this trolling would never stop as it lasted more than two years but I haven't been called Hitler since early 2011. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We can fix the last part for you if you'd like! :) Killiondude (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "last part"? I sent a private Wikipedia email to User:Oversight mentioning the account with my real name. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 03:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumably Killiondude means that we could start calling you Hitler. Note the :) afterward — he's clearly joking. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Vic There?

I added a CSD template to it yesterday. Today, I find out that the category of it isn't showing and it isn't showing in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I'd like it deleted so I can move User:Launchballer/Is Vic There? there. Thank you.--Launchballer 08:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's because you need to put a reason in the template, or Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is not activated. I've performed the move for you - could you sort out all the stuff like categories and WikiProject tags, etc.? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on own Talk Page Tolerable???

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! Yesterday, I witnessed Personal attacks and abuse by an editor, named Darkness Shines. I proposed an article for deletion, notified him through Twinkle, and got a sweet reply on my talk here with intolerable and authority posing behaviour. I, on his astonishing and disgusting comments, replied with this diff on his talk, and this reply was neither a rude comment, nor an abuse. Still I was shocked at his replies afterwards. I was attacked personally and he used abusive comments both on the talk and by the edit summaries. His comments with additional abusive summaries like [33], [34] should be taken in note. I was asked that "as this is my talk page, fuck off and admit it." and on warning for reporting to administrator for these attacks, I was given the special reply of "My talk page TG, my rules, fuck of till you can admit you are wrong.". In short, I just want to know that "Are these beautiful words tolerable, and will not be considered as abusive personal attacks if made on ones talk?"? Can someone abuse, Can someone attack, Can someone violate our rules on his talk????

I need a reply, either a consent for permitting such behaviour on one's own talk, and if not, a block. Faizan 13:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTCENSORED And if I wish to swear on my talk page I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is for articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, not for abusive talk page comments! Let the administrators answer now. Faizan 13:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Swearing is one thing, being rude is another. It is possible to use profanity without being rude, and it is also possible to be rude without swearing. You were clearly being rude at Faizan on your talk page, and censorship was clearly not an issue. smtchahal^talk 13:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

DS, calling someone a "nationalist prick" and then telling them to "fuck off" - whether that's at your own talk page or elsewhere - is NOT appropriate. If I see anything like it again, anywhere, you will be blocked. GiantSnowman

I don't think that this offense was for the first time. He has been issued warnings and has been blocked even several time before. Faizan 13:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Where are the personal attacks though? "Fuck off" is clearly uncivil, but not a personal attack, it tells nothing about the contributor, it just indicates (too strongly) that you want them to stop whatever they have done to piss you off. He is not saying that you are a (fill in personal attack here), he isn't washing that something bad happens to you either; he is uncivil and has WP:OWN issues, but he shouldn't be berated (or blocked) for things he hasn't done. Fram (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The diff where DS calls Faizan a "nationalist prick"...? GiantSnowman 14:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is...? Sorry, I thought I checked them all, I don't see that one; obviously, that would be a serious PA, but in which diff is it? Fram (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The same thing I was asking! Is this behaviour, whether or not it is Personal Attack, will it be tolerated? Will are Wikipedians be exempted? That was my question, please read it carefully! Faizan 14:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This one] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hidden in the edit summary here. GiantSnowman 14:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that was directed at Mrt, not Faizan. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes it OK then? Jeez... GiantSnowman 14:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, will then it become acceptable if directed at Mrt3366? Faizan 14:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that was directed at Mrt, not Faizan. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Ah, so it wasn't in the OP. Giant Snowman, please don't suppose that people will know out of the blue where a statement comes from. Anyway, that PA wasn't against Faizan and not about this incident (seems to have more to do with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What I would really like. Using a different discussion to handle that seems to be a bit off. Is there anything actionable in Faizan's report? Fram (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Will then it become acceptable if directed at Mrt3366? Faizan 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Fram, you can see it in the very first diff posted on this topic. I would suppose that people would read that. GiantSnowman 14:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was obviously over the top in calling him a prick, but he is a nationalist Feel free to block me, I honestly am beyond caring anymore. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It was the second diff, not the first one, and no, I don't read the edit summary on the left side of the diff, certainly not when that side has nothing to do with the posting by the OP (Faizan only posted that diff as an indication of "his" civility, not as an example of what DS does wrong, so I guess that even Faizan didn't read the diff he posted, since he didn't complain about PAs directed at others, but only about non-existent PA's directed at him). As for the comment against MrT, any reason that that can't be discussed in the topic where it belongs, the one at ANI I already posted? Fram (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I posted that diff only as a proof for the continuity of discussion. I replied him for his post on my talk, and that's it, which I want to show! Faizan 14:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for assuming that somebody an Admin would read the entirety of a diff... GiantSnowman 14:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, feel free to accept my apologies in return for erroneously expecting that an admin who says "DS, calling someone a "nationalist prick" and then telling them to "fuck off"", means that the first and the second are actually directed at the same person (what the "them" seems to indicate) and not at two "different" persons in two "different" discussions. Don't patronize people when you aren't acting any better, to put it mildly. Fram (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can everyone stop squabbling? DS has a long history of lack of self-control. He flies off the handle and says things he shouldn't. Some of them he regrets later, some he doesn't. In this case, he was uncivil to Faizan and attacked MrT (with whom he has a LONG history). Whether he should be sanctioned I leave up to others as I have some history with DS (whom I like, btw) that makes me WP:INVOLVED. I think he should apologize to Faizan, but Faizan also needs to understand that there are many Wikipedians who use swear words and it's generally tolerated. I'm not saying that I personally approve of it, but it's just the way it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever, it was not squabbling. Even if others' use it, they should be stopped too, instead of promotion. Now what? Are others' permitted to use these words legally from now on? Faizan 14:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the word "squabbling" was mostly directed at my highly respected fellow admins. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, many Wikipedians do use swear words. But to use them at every occasion when one is not happy (I say this based on my extensive interaction with the said user), can cross the threshold of what should generally be tolerated or deemed acceptable. Especially when such behaviour is displayed with previously unacquainted users, to whom such display of behaviour can appear very rude. We are all here to help build an encyclopedia, and since interaction with others is something that we cannot avoid, I think aggressive behaviour like this should generally be controlled. It is for the benefit of both the user concerned and others whom interact with him. There are WP:CIVIL ways to talk to others when you disagree with them, and I don't think coarse language or aggressive behaviour are compatible with those manners. Mar4d (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• DS knows far better, based on his tenure and block log. As per escalation, blocked fro 2 weeks for NPA. Please file this at WP:ANI in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:39, 27 May 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.

Pay day loans adverts

I've deleted User:LinnieEva and User:LucasScal for advertising pay day loans on their user pages. The format of both pages was the same, with a different target link - but a rather similar page at the target. Looks like a sort of franchised marketing thing which is telling them to put these pages up here and the format to use. I've indeffed both with autoblock on. (I'd only warned the first one - then changed it when the second appeared.) If anyone else finds any more of these, we might nip this in the bud by doing something the same as I did. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked a few accounts with similar formating. It is not just pay day loans they are pushing. This particular spammer appeared just a couple of days ago. See edit filter 499. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I routinely block (indef, with autoblock) all editors I find whose sole contributions are spam userpages, since they're generally spam-only accounts. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have done the same. It's an easy problem to fix, if I do make a mistake - and explaining to an innocent user how what they posted can look like spam is educational to the user. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Same here, though occasionally I go further. If spammer is obviously using typical spammer tactics and they are posting on their user talk pages, I will revoke the talk page access and let them ask for an unblock through other channels. For example, User:Spencer143. The reason I do that is that I have seen some user talk page spammers keep posting after their block notice. I also delete the spammy user/user talk pages even if somebody has already blanked or unlinked the spam link. I don't want the spammer to have any chance of their link being found through search engines. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Idiomatic copyright

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!

Today, a few minutes ago, I was about to add an additional source relating to a forthcoming article that I was about to publish on en.wp, but I just noticed that the full article in French, which was originally created and published on fr.wp on April 2011, has been subsequently (i.e. more than two years later) translated in English → see here, which is nice, except that the said subsequent translation does not contain any mention about the original source in French which is based on fr.wp.

The good thing is that the translation’s work is done, but the forthcoming problem might be now that the inclusion of an English version on en.wp, which would be based on the aforesaid original fr.wp article, might strangely be considered as a potential alleged copyright violation (and, consecutively, induce an speedy deletion), mainly because of the fact that the first fr.wp credits are not mentioned on the aforesaid translation, even though the said English translation was done much longer after the creation of the first article on fr.wp.

It is a bit an odd situation.

How could we solve this unexpected issue?

Thank you for your help!

Kindest regards!

euphonie ^breviary
08:48, 08:54, 08:58, 11:34, 11:46 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The translation you link to is a very poor one -- probably a machine translation. There's no point using it on en.wiki in any case. It would be fine to make a new translation for the en.wiki, putting a {{Translated page}} tag on the new translation's talk page. That would not be copyvio. --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your answer! Would this new translation →‎ here (nota bene: this is a fragmentary and unachieved work) be a bit more “suitable”? Or is this preliminary result still much too “stodgy”? Kindest regards! — euphonie ^breviary 11:12, 11:14, 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)No problem. Now that the copyright question is answered, administrator assistance is not needed, so I think we should close the discussion here. You are welcome to visit my talk page if you would like further help. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK! Thank you! Kind regards to you, too! — euphonie ^breviary 13:38, 28 May 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.

Backlog at Category:Rescaled fairuse files

Images at Category:Rescaled fairuse files do not seem to be moving automatically into Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old. I null edited {{non-free reduced}}, but they still didn't appear. I then null edited individual files in Category:Rescaled fairuse files so that they did appear in Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old, but I haven't gone through them all.

Take care to make sure that the resizing is appropriate - it sometimes isn't given that we've outsourced low resolution decisions to a bot, even though it's incapable of judging subjects on anything other that a magic number. There are also some tagged images which might be ineligible for copyright, such as text-logos. - hahnchen 13:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment on user:Xenophrenic

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 WP:RFC/U on User:Xenophrenic. There is an ongoing arbitration case in which many editors involved in the WP:RFC/U, including user:Xenophrenic, user: Malke 2010, user:Arthur Rubin, and user:North8000, are parties to. On the tea party moved, the Arbitration Committee has examined the evidence. As of now, the likly finding of fact for User:Xenophrenic is:

Xenophrenic has edited Tea Party movement since March 2010, and is the second leading contributor with 397 edits - 63 of which have been reverts; 5 of which are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Xenophrenic was blocked in 2011 for breaking community sanctions on Tea Party movement, and was blocked twice in 2007 and once in 2013 for edit warring on other articles. Xenophrenic has made 573 edits to the talkpage. There was no community support for a topic ban, Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions.

By point of bring this up here, is that very few of the editors involved in the WP:RFC/U are unbiased, including myself. Most are involved in the Arbitration case or at least involved in editing articles on U.S. Politics. With that being the case, I would ask that non-involved editors take a look at the WP:RFC/U. The Link is here.

I don't know what is going on here but Casprings just dumped part of Xenophrenic's user page onto my talk page: [35]. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings is edit warring on my talk page:

Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not "edit waring". I was trying to correctly format a notification of this discussion. As noted, I made a mistake on how I linked user:Xenophrenic name in the title of the notification. I was trying to fix that.Casprings (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings, you had to deliberately go to Xenophrenic's User page, copy that content and then dump it on my talk page. That's vandalisim. Then when I came here and posted a link to it, you went back and removed it. I put it back so the link would make sense, and then you edit warred over it. What is going on here? There is a certified RfC/U on Xenophrenic and you've come here to complain about it? Whatever you think you're doing, please stop doing it on my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• No you don't. You just have to link a user name with {{, instead of [[. Go ahead, try it. Casprings (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Which obviously you did in order to vandalize my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, it isn't like they are on the same key on the keyboard or anything. No way, that could have been a mistake. I was trying to inform you of this discussion, and made a mistake in the title. Thus you got the message. I than went back to fix it. Casprings (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this, a duplicate venue? North8000 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what he's trying to accomplish here. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever's going on, it's disruptive, and I'm getting a dimmer and dimmer view of everyone whom I've seen to be involved. Xenophrenic tried to get the RFCU deleted even though it qualified, Phoenix and Winslow (one user) has been using my words rather...strangely to make it sound as if I supported the RFCU certifiers' statements and has also petitioned for my involvement, and now Casprings is disrupting Malke's talk and duplicating venues without good reason. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted, I made a mistake on the notification. I used {{, instead of [[, to notify him. That was a good faith mistake. Casprings (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what the OP is trying to achieve here, but anything that requires administrator attention is already being dealt with at the ArbCom case. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)}}

I don't think there is consensus to close this. The major point of this is to ask for some input into an WP:RFC/U, which could use some outside eyes. Casprings (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Can we just discuss whatever's bothering you at the RfC/U Talk page, please? Thanks ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:59, 27 May 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.

BLP issue?

Initially, this RfC/U contained little concrete evidence. After advice on presenting evidence was offered by a most experience Wikipedian, the problem was rectified by one of the certifiers [36]. However, I'm concerned that the new evidence contains statements like "[XX] is possibly the most hated Democratic member of the House besides [YY]". These are the words of one the certifiers, not of Xenophrenic, with the name of the living persons elided by myself in this copy. My question for the administration is: is this kind of statement normally made in RfC/Us? I admittedly have not read many such RfCs, but this is the first time I see such a statement in one. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IPs are human too

This is interesting, IP address. Please feel free to include your diffs while xenophrenic was signed in and editing, and, of course, your diffs while xenophrenic was idle. This can help us greatly.†TE†Talk 00:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC) What's meant by that? My first impression is that you're saying the IP is perhaps a sock, but I don't see why you'd say that, so I'm doubtful of my first impression. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC) To be clear. Any IP address who end up here without an invite and is.......don't be mad .......how can you question reality .......that IP addresses have no place in ANI unless socking. That's a fact. †TE†Talk 01:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. I don't know whether it's common in RFCUs, but it's not the kind of thing that's an attack. Remember that this is very different from saying "XX is the worst Democratic member of the House" — unlike that, "most hated" simply talks about other people's opinions of XX. Watch enough TV or listen to enough radio and you'll sometimes even find politicians proclaiming "____ group of people hates me" as evidence that they're doing a good job fighting that group's eeeevil intentions. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the biographies of the two politicians in question, but I did not see any self-identification of the kind you describe above, nor did I see any polling about the public opinion in this matter. But I accept your finding that it falls within the realm of acceptable speech about public figures on Wikipedia. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Another RfC/U participant thought eventually that it was a BLP violation [37] [38]. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning that these politicians self-identified as such; I mean that this is the kind of thing that occasionally gets noised about in various places. I can't give you a specific example. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

From WP:BLPTALK: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Was the removed content contentious? Yes. Was it about a living person? Yes. Was it unsourced or poorly sourced? Yes. Was it not related to making content choices? Yes. Therefore, it should be removed, deleted, or oversighted. Seems like simple logic to me. The fact that it gets "noised about" doesn't make it okay to post onwiki. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This is why we have a WP:UCS page. Throwing a fit over something like this is absurd and not at all helpful, especially since sourcing isn't applicable on pages like RFCUs. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Throwing a fit? I removed a denigrating comment about a living person from a talk page. Seems like perfect common sense to me. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP states: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis original) so it applies to an RFC/U just as much as it does an article. NJ did the right thing. NE Ent 23:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Was it not related to making content choices? Yes." Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that. The certifier who wrote his opinion about those two politicians was trying to convince us that those politicians needed to be put in a harsher light. The certifier was doing this in order to prove that the editor subject of the RfC/U was basically whitewashing articles of Democratic politicians. So it was reasonably related to a discussion about content choices, not a random rant. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting involvedness

Right folks, here is a question on admin conduct and use of tools to settle a difference of opinion....

As an admin, let's say I find an article that has some content which violates some guidelines such as a BLP with material sourced from a tabloid (or medical article using primary sources or whatever), and I remove that content. Now let's say another editor is unhappy with this and reverts. Now if this continues, am I as an admin allowed to block the person? I'd say "no" and instead alert a noticeboard for a hitherto uninvolved admin as I have adopted a position, but if the consensus is here that I can then I am happy to go with consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the BLP would be a special case: you're protecting a living person. I'll think a bit on the other - it appears to me that the article is not something you typically edit - you stumbled across it for some reason, and it should not make you involved (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Casliber has sufficient wiki status that they could probably get away with it under the "any reasonable admin" common sense provision / loophole but it's just better not to. Two editors relaying the same message once is superior to a single editor saying the same thing like five times with links to policies and all that. It's a lot harder for a misguided editor to think a "power hungry admin" is picking on them if their calm, neutrally worded report on the appropriate noticeboard is validated by a second voice. And no, posting on boards doesn't "cause drama" -- it's how folks react to posting that determines whether there is the dreaded dramaz or not. NE Ent 10:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ent makes a good point. If the edit was purely maintenance (removing blp problems on an article I've never edited, I would call maintenance) and not preference, it isn't involved, but drama is a bigger issue than policy. If it isn't urgent, I would just ask someone else to review. If it is very disruptive, I've been known to block, then just drop a note here and ask for review, which is usually quick and painless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to User:Bwilkins, I am not on board with the argument that a correction of a BLP violation is an exemption to being involved. It is an exemption to 3RR, but that's a different kettle of fish. I do agree that a pure maintenance edit should not be construed as involved, I am surprised (and disagree) that removing a BLP violation is what we mean by maintenance. I think of maintenance as correcting typos, spelling, fixing malformed references, etc. So I would strongly support reporting the editor, rather than doing the blocking oneself. It isn't like there is a shortage of admins. (I can imagine an exception—if it was a time when few were around, and the editor was making multiple seriously bad edits, it would be acceptable to block, then ask for a block review, but that doesn't fit the circumstances of the hypothetical.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with SPhilbrick, one of the main purposes of not involved, is that the single admin is not both prosecutor and judge in substantive editing decisions that call for consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the BLP violation, granted, but if an admin reverts "Bob is a known Nazi sympathizer" then I don't see how that makes him involved, and do consider that maintenance. Like everything else around here "it depends", but removing a BLP violation can be purely maintenance if the only reason it was removed was to make it comply with policy, just as fixing a formatting error makes it comply with MOS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to go a little further. An editor adds "Bob is gay" to an article, and you - the admin - remove it. The editor comes back and adds "Bob's well-known homosexual partner is Some Otherguy" with or without a false citation. I'm sorry, that admin can block, should block, and should also re-revert the BS BLP violations. This is not rocket science - it's about protecting the project and the person (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The motivation for the edit is key in determining what is maintenance and what is editorial. And again, if you think that someone might question it, drop it off here afterwards. That removes all doubt, and is usually quickly closed after a couple of editors review it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you say the same about: "Bob is known Nazi sympathizer [citations]" ? Just on your interpretation of BLP = meaning it is the case that the statement is NPOV (relevant) and verifiable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably not if it was actually in the source, unless there was some other factor clearly indicating it was added in malice or intentionally as a BLP violation (editor or article history, prior warnings, etc.) This falls under "it depends" and the more specific you get, the harder it is to generalize. This is why if I must block to prevent ongoing disruption now in a case that is borderline, I post here and ask for review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alan & SPhilbrick, I disagree. Currently, an admin can protect a page and, then, remove a blatant BLP violation; that's accepted and nobody would reproach the protecting admin for his actions. So I don't see why doing the reverse should be any different: an admin who removes a blatant BLP violation and then protects the page when another editor reverts his edits (or blocks the editor in question) should not be censured. Of course, that's merely IMHO. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Any editor can remove a blatant BLP violation repeatedly. So, they are acting as an editor not as an administrator, and involved in an editing dispute, so another administrator should do the administrator things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's immaterial: warnings can be issued by anyone (and, so, an admin warning someone is acting as an editor), but I can block someone I've just warned... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A warning is not editing an article, and it's not editing another editor's edits. A warning is a statement of administrative standards, without editing another editors edits, so it is not an editorial function. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay - yes these are egregious examples - but what if it was more subtle than that? Say, material which is seemingly innocuous but either unsourced or sourced to a tabloid (in a BLP) or is a primary source (in a medical article) and not overtly malicious? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My perspective is that you let someone else block if waiting is reasonable. If they are active and you feel you must block now, and you can do so under the exception to WP:INVOLVED, you block then immediately drop it off here for instant review. This way if you are wrong, the damage can be minimized. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, to put this all in perspective, this does refer to a recent situation at the article Connie Talbot. Essentially admin John (talk · contribs) removed segments of material sourced only to tabloids, which the main contributor J Milburn (talk · contribs) objected to and reverted. John reverted that twice. There was much heated conversation at User_talk:John#Talk:Connie_Talbot, Talk:Connie_Talbot#Tabloid_sources and User_talk:J_Milburn#May_2013 - in the last there is some discussion between me and John, who opines that he is able to block other editors on the Connie Talbot page as he isn't involved. Anyway, so I wasn't the admin but a wiki-friend of the editor being threatened with a block. As far as the original dustup, J Milburn has promised to look for other sources. I do take exception to content editors being treated like naughty schoolchildren and am bemused at John stating I'm unaware of involved. After we talked past each other, I mentioned I'd seek 2nd/3rd opinions...so what do folks think...is John involved in this scenario? Or am I interpreting it too broadly? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Color me dense, but I don't see how statements like "It is also available as a 13 track mp3 album without a bonus track from Amazon.com.[ref]Amazon[/ref]" are a BLP issue [39]. So John was definitely involved as a regular editor. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how you have no reason to be bothering these people -- The color you want me to paint is a color I cannot say. †TE†Talk 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Colour me confused.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit makes him look involved. Others may as well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 18:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - this is all helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for re-visitation of the topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow

After some discussion with TheShadowCrow on my talk page, I would like to request a partial lift on his topic ban related to creating BLP and Armenia(n) related articles. Despite an initial BATTLEGROUND start to that discussion, I believe that this user has come to a realization that no-one is "out to get them" or holding any grudges against them. I believe that at this point, something similar to the article creation restriction of User:Doncram by arbitration process, which states: "He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review." I believe that a one month or twenty-five new approved article threshold would be reasonable to demonstrate this user's intention to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner and awareness of identifying reliable sources for use on the biographies of living persons that have some verifiability. I think that this would make a reasonable prerequisite for an overall lifting of his topic ban in demonstrating good faith to properly edit existing articles on the topics. Thank you for your time and consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this the second or third request of this nature is a very short span of time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my first request on this users behalf after his second previous request on his own behalf requesting a full revocation of the ban of which he withdrew. This request, I would like to emphasize, is a request for a partial lift to facilitate reviewed new article creations offering him an opportunity To prove his claims of having learnt his lesson. Due to a technological restriction, I am unable to post links to the orginial discussion and previous requests for revocation for his ban, but would be happy to do so in the morning. Thank you again. Technical 13 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not an issue, but I notice the user has already made Armenia related edits to his sandbox: [40], [41]. This would be technically in breach of: "edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed". Now I don't think that would merit any sort of sanction, but it might be premature and indicative of continued impatience, along with the multiple appeals, and postings to user talk pages such as User talk:Dennis Brown pushing for support in his appeal: [42],[43] etc.

That said, I'd actually support a relaxation of the topic ban to allow him to work, initially, on a single article at a time in his sandbox - which would need to be reviewed by an editor with good BLP experience before being moved to mainspace. He'd need to find someone willing to do those reviews. If that works out, then the restrictions could be gradually relaxed. If it doesn't, then the original terms are easily reinstated. I don't like the AFC idea at all - AFC reviewers shouldn't be expected to do what could essentially amount to mentoring a topic-banned editor. Begoon ^talk 07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good proposal. Support. NE Ent

That seems to be a reasonable counter-proposal. As a reviewer at AfC, I would be happy to ask around and see if there is anyone that has good BLP experience and see if they would be willing to take this user under their wing and mentor them. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've made requests at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-user#Requesting an adopter that is... and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Requesting a reviewer that is... as promised. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly that reduces my support somewhat, because one of the big concerns here is the "pushy" nature of the appeals to date. Did you not notice the multiple uses of the word "premature" in this section? That should have been a hint. Editors worried that this was being pushed too hard and too fast will hardly be reassured to see you attempting to make arrangements for something that only one editor supports, and 2 admins have opposed, in an unfinished discussion. I know you're trying to help, but that doesn't, imo. Begoon ^talk 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how requesting a relaxation on a three month topic ban that was imposed seven weeks ago (one week shy of two months) which is over 50% of his sentence being carried out with a mentoring that would be set to last no less than a month (putting him one week shy of the original three months) is premature. Can someone explain that to me, please, as I really do not understand it. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try. I tried to explain my comment when I made it. I came back and tried to clarify it a couple of times. It's a perception thing. My little girl knows that quite often the best way to get something from me when she's been forbidden it or abused it is to stop asking for it back every 5 minutes. She knows that constantly asking the same question in different ways is not going to work out for her. So she behaves for a while, smiles sweetly, and gets what she wants more quickly. Sometimes she forgets, and keeps holding onto the stick. That doesn't work out for her, ever. Not a perfect analogy, and sorry if it doesn't help. Begoon ^talk 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Are you kidding me? This was withdrawn as way too premature, not because you offered to have a chat. There cannot be relaxation of the TB this soon, seeing as he wholly misunderstood what the topic ban actually meant. Bringing this up now risks a topic ban against requesting relaxation of their topic ban - bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my thinking at the last discussion from a few days ago - too soon. Wait for the full 3 months and then we will re-visit. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's hard to see how editing in a sandbox would be disruptive. I can see the reasoning behind wanting a three month break but the editor may lose interest altogether than then we've lost an editor (we have a shortage of those). NE Ent 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I've seen a lot of editors being pushed away unreasonably recently, and based on my readings of previous incidents that seems to be the way it has always been. This is sad that there are people that want to help and improve Wikipedia as a whole, but may be a little misguided in doing so and for that receive excessive blocks or bans from Wikipedia. Now, I realize that there are a lot of stupid bots and people that intend to do harm, but honestly, I rarely see any of those formally attempting to follow protocol and come to ANI or any other venue to request reconsideration. Most of the bots and those wishing to do harm to the project don't bother, they simply create a new spa or make their atrocious edits anonymously. Now, Wikipedia has many venues to help new editors, Help desk, Teahouse/Questions, Adopt a user program, AFC, and the list goes on, but there seems to be a broken link in getting the people that are having troubles and are here in ANI to these programs and help areas. Instead, there seems to be a let's block them for half a year and maybe they will be more mature and absorb all of our guidelines in the meantime even though they don't have the opportunity to practice any of the things they are suppose to be learning. I see lots of flaws in this, and hope that there can be a way to discuss this out and come up with a better "rehabilitation" program of sorts to get people hooked up with the right resources to help them make better edits on Wikipedia. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

People are rehabilitated here all the time. Many admins started out by getting in trouble and then learning to fit in. It's a community, it's established, and at the end of the day it's a lot harder to change the monolith than change yourself. You need to be a part of it to effect change from within, and change from outside isn't going to happen, generally. I've been "mentoring" an editor who was indefinitely blocked, and saw no prospect at the time of his ban of ever getting out of the hole he was in. It's taken not weeks, or months, but much longer, and it's ongoing because it still benefits him, and me. Now he's a valuable member of the community, productive, and a lot of other editors respect him. I hardly need to do any "mentoring" with him at all now, but I'm still around for him if he wants to talk. Sometimes he "mentors" me now, on topics he knows better than I do. And I'm nothing - have a look at the mentoring work editors like User:Worm That Turned have done. Simply awesome. Sure, we could do the "mentoring" thing better as a community - but please don't think it doesn't already happen. A lot. Officially and unofficially. It's just not a "10 steps to heaven", tick all the boxes, model citizen in a fortnight program. But if you come up with one, I'm all ears. Begoon ^talk 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I failed to make myself clear in the fact that I understand and respect that there are a few people that are rehabilitated with the way things currently work. My point was that if a person takes the time to discuss what they did, or what it was perceived that they did (I'll admit that I don't agree that there were initial violations in all of the cases I've seen on these noticeboards, but that may be my lack of understanding of all of the circumstances or whatnot and I've not the time or interest in dredging up all kinds of old "cases"), and someone feels it worthy to request a modification of the sanctions that are proposed on a user based on the discussion and all previous discussions that indicate others feel that the user is remorseful and truly has good faith intentions, than it isn't unreasonable to allow some modification of the sanctions from "you can't do" to "you can do, but supervised" and I think it benefits Wikipedia more in the long run to encourage participation in any of the programs I listed or implied that are designed to improve the editing skills of the editor and offer some kind of reward (in these cases, lightening, not removal, of the sanctions against them). Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And as you saw from my support above, and Ent's, you're not alone in believing that we should work in that way. We also need to show respect for the community's time in dealing with these matters though, and, like it or lump it, serial appeals and constant pushiness rubs people up the wrong way. Always. I've used up my self imposed monthly ANI word count just in this discussion, though - so good luck. Begoon ^talk 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As promised last night, the links to the previous discussions are: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Please remove my ban. → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive249#Ban_appeal

Legal threat

Can an IP be blocked for a legal threat? Not that I think it's a very serious one, and probably the author of the deleted page Talk:Korosh Kushzad anyway, but I'm just curious, never having come across one before. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course they can - just for shorter times (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What sort of length? I've never had much to do with blocking IPs. Peridon (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, does it look like the same IP has been editing for awhile - does it appear dynamic? If it looks fixed, go for 2 months ... if it looks dynamic, go for a week ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Thenightchicagodied needing immediate attention

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 administrators! I'm not entirely sure which noticeboard this belongs on, but felt it was something that needed to be addressed and dealt with. I issued this warning on this user's talk page for the reversion I did of his edit to the talk page of TheOriginalSoni. I then decided to check out the history of Thenightchicagodied's talk page and found this warning from TOS that seems to be what had prompted the post on TOS's talk page. Since I have started writing this report, Thenightchicagodied has reverted my warning (apparently accusing me of being an SPA of TOS), left this on TOS's talk page, also been warned by DVdm, removed that warning, and is being extremely vulgar and BATTLEGROUND style WP:PA in their edit summaries... I'm sure they are causing more disruption, but I'm choosing to submit at this point and let an admin deal with it. Technical 13 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As a matter of policy, it's worth noting that you are allowed to remove warnings from your own talkpage. No comment on the other stuff; I'll leave that for some admin to sort out. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Final warning issued here for personal attacks and uncivil behaviour. GiantSnowman 14:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warning removed by user. GiantSnowman 14:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• User Thenightchicagodied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already had 4 warnings for personal attacks. Next revert (for any reason) would automatically get them reported at WP:AIV and probably promptly get them indefinitely blocked. A matter of time, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reverting what, exactly? GiantSnowman 15:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please have a look at TheOriginalSoni's attack on myself in the Suburban Express talk page. Without any evidence, she accuses me of IP posts and engages in a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenightchicagodied (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a diff please? GiantSnowman 15:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Are you referring to this edit restoring a request for you to quit socking or this edit doing the same? Technical 13 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• DVdm (talk · contribs) and Technical 13 (talk · contribs), why are you removing Thenightchicagodied's posts from TheOriginalSoni (talk · contribs)? And why are you doing so with misleading (or even, some could say, false) edit summaries? 1, 2, 3, 4. GiantSnowman 14:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Since when is titling a section "Hey Dickhead" and using the edit summaries of "removed edit by theoriginalsoni which accuses me of edits which i did not do. fuck off you little prick." and "fuck off you little prick, your tech support job needs you." not considered a personal attack especially when coming from an account that has been Blocked for sockpuppetry ? Technical 13 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You couldn't change the heading? The actual message was OK. And what about the other three diffs? GiantSnowman 15:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Our edits here actually overlapped...

I assure you that I personally am not "out to get you". Although my first revision was completely accurate removing your personal attack against TOS, I will admit that my second one may have been questionable whereas my adrenalin was pumping from your apparent personal attack against me by implying that I'm an SPA of TOS in your edit summary reverting my reversion of your attack telling TOS to leave you along (for the record, I'm in the USA and TOS is in Asia iirc). I looked it over very quickly on the second reversion and did not notice you changed the context of the section header to something a little more appropriate (albeit pushing the threshold with tone in my opinion). I apologize for this. Considering your recent blocks and apparent newness on Wikipedia, may I suggest looking into the Adopt-a-user program and finding yourself an adopter? You may also want to read up on WP:CALM and feel free to ask questions at the Teahouse (I'll send you an invite just below) in a civil manner. Technical 13 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I did send the invite in the below section on the user's talk page, and the last two reversions are not mine to answer for, I stopped and came here after the second one. Technical 13 (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)

Hi GiantSnowman,

1. [44]: "Hey Dickhead" = PA
2. [45]: reposting comment that I understood was removed by user TheOriginalSoni^(*) before, hence harrassment, hence PA
3. [46]: idem
4. [47]: idem

^(*) I did a search for the instance where TheOriginalSoni originally removed the message from their talk page. I could not find it. Only user Technic 13 seems to have done so ([48] and [49]). So technically this probably wasn't harrassment (or PA) after all. If TheOriginalSoni did not feel harrassed by Thenightchicagodied's addition of the comment, then I was carried away by their original edit summaries ([50], [51], [52]) and Technic 13's other reverts, and thus mistaken, for which my apologies. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:38, 29 May 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.

I go offline for 12 hours and this is what greets me when I come back. Woah. The user under question has been showing disruptive symptoms throughout their activity here, and I have been unsuccesfully trying to reason with them. Had I been online at the time, I would have made the first revert too, but probably would have let the others stay, even though I would still consider them PA and harassment. Thank you T13 and DVdm for those reverts, and I find all of them correct. I hope we do not see more of him again, although we probably might. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyang Halla

This article needs to jump onto a few watch lists. I've brought this up with administrators in the past, but I do not regularly edit any more or generally care too. It may be a BLP issue, as it is a fairly on-going attack against a living person. Background:

Alex Kim was an import player for Anyang Halla, before his departure there were rumours of some kind of incident between him and the team's english interpreter/scout. In fact the interpreter is indef blocked from Wikipedia for his continually inserting press releases/promotional material onto the AH article and sometimes the Asia League article. The interpreter was fired/let go from the team before Alex left. Since that time, there have been some attacks on his article page, as well as a repeated effort to remove his name from the list of past import players on the team. Racist terms have been inserted on his page like this: [53], [54] and here [55]. You can see his name being removed here [56] and [57]. Both pages should hit some people's watch pages, and I expect CU would probably not turn up anything on those IPs, but 99.9999999% I would say that it is the same guy doing this, as I can't imagine anyone else who would specifically target him like that.--114.205.84.126 (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks extension

Hey all. As described on this dedicated page, we've built a system to thank editors for individual edits. As I'm sure you're all aware, it's relatively trivial to deal with bad contributions (undo and rollback are your friend!) but we don't really have any way in MediaWiki to encourage editors who have made good edits. We can send out barnstars, sure, but barnstars are justifiably Kind Of A Big Deal - they're for really substantial contributions or a large number of small ones. There's nothing to thank people for individually helpful, gnome-ish edits except dropping a personal note - which is quite a lot of effort to do every time someone corrects a typo.

The Thanks extension solves for this; with it, you can send an editor a notification about the value of their edit with a couple of button-clicks. If you're not a fan, there will be preference options to turn off (respectively) receiving thanks, and seeing the interface elements of the extension at all. You can read more here :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Could you drop this message off at WT:WER as well? And thank you, this is an interesting idea. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the good idea! Doing so now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman 20:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• I like the idea, but shouldn't this go on Village Pump rather than here? wctaiwan (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  I posted it on the VPT ~15 seconds after I posted here :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  Just received my first "Thank you". It was for protecting a page where there was sock puppetry going on. It almost reminds me of a baby barnstar, a nice ping that is unobtrusive. Sent my first one as well. I think I will like this. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 edit waring on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

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:Anonymous209.6 is currently edit waring on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. His edits are going against consensus on the talk page, which he has been involved in. I would ask some aid in returning User:Anonymous209.6 to the talk page and gaining consensus on what are continuos changes.Casprings (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

King quote (actually the quote is accurate, it is the made-up-question that he wasn't asked that is the problem, as discussed on Talk) WP:BLP problem has been discussed at length, never addressed by Casprings. King used to have a section that violated WP:BLP and was tagged WP:POV, with justification. Casprings issued threats on UserTalk, filed frivolous WP:ANI that went away. Tag agreed to by consensus, consensus for REMOVAL. Casprings INSTEAD moved whole problem section to where it made no sense (support for Akin as a person, OK, rest, NO). Much discussed on Talk. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Relavent talk page sections are here and here. The changes made were an attempt to address the issues of all editors. There is certainly no consensus to remove the material.Casprings (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP 101. 1) There is no consensus. Your new and BLP-violating made-up question has only been edited by me and Casprings, and only referenced on Talk by me 2) For the same reason, it is logically impossible to call MY behavior edit warring, since the BLP violations are spelled out and justified, compared to the unjustified repetitive mindless re-insertion by Casprings 3) In cases of WP:BLP-violating content, immediate REMOVAL is required. Not only is prior consensus NOT required, but an actual consensus does not over-rule deletion of WP:BLP violating content. 4) Deletion of BLP-violating content is not even subject to 3rr. The one and only question (and one of the few ones on which admin input would be very helpful in advance) is whether manufacturing a question to make a non-controversial answer by a politician SEEM controversial is a violation of WP:BLP. If it is, insertion once is an editing behavior violation, and deletion however many times in whatever time frame is not.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A number of editors have discussed the issues you brought up. If you continue to think there is a BLP violation, prehaps WP:BLPN might be the place to report it. However, lets handle the dispute on the talk page by gaining concensus over the issues.Casprings (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeating myself. Your new, but still false, manufactured question has not been commented on other than by me. The major WP:BLP violations issues must be addressed on Talk by YOU, before re-insertion, and certainly before filing an ANI. To admins; to weigh in on a BLP question, an admin would have to weigh in on the BLP issues, that is just logic. The WP:BLP issues are here because Casprings brought them here. For Casprings to now say that Casprings wants to file new noticeboard processes to avoid a discussion on ANI of the WP:BLP issues Casprings themselves brought to WP:ANI is utterly nonsensical.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to this discussion that only you and I took part in. I do not recall that from the talk page.Casprings (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate (but valid) WP:BLP not the original subject

This sentence, which Casprings continues to push, ..he stated that pregnancy from rape was "something God intended". is contentious. Taking a partial quote anytime is problematic, but to take the persons word's out of context at the same time is a BLP violation. This article has several problems, and this is simply a good example of the general problems with this article. And to think that Casprings thinks that this is deserving of FA status is even more problematic. Arzel (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is a reference to the title of one of the sections. This has already been discussed some time ago, here. This topic is not the subject of the current dispute.Casprings (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am talking specifically about the sentence not your misuse of selective quoting in the section heading. Why do you feel the need to push a selective quote when the full quote is available? Arzel (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, here, Casprings has a point. The selective quoting of Mourdock is among the many WP:BLP issues with THAT section, and while I understand that the huge number of individual WP:BLP that basically comprise the article make it difficult to keep straight WHICH WP:BLP issue we are talking about, (combined with Caspring's tendentious habit of filing dozens of noticeboard or admin processes INSTEAD of keeping discussions within the subject on Talk page) in this case the subject is a different WP:BLP issue, namely the fabrication of a question to go with an actual answer King said. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous, looking at your edit history, YOU surely have a point. And you should achieve a consensus for a new wording on the talk page instead of edit warring against consensus. This is how WP works. Cavarrone 16:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And about this subsection, these concers were already raised by Arzel in more proper places more than once and everytime wholly dismissed... I don't see how they are relevant here. Cavarrone 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This particular issue has not been addressed. The taking out of context of that quote has not been addressed, only the partial quoting of the section heading was discussed. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cavarrone; thank you for the supportive comment on the WP:BLP issues that are the original issue. Since from the time-stamp, it seems we cross-edited, I had already left a polite note on Arzel's Talk page that the Mourdock section BLP violations were not in fact the subject of this ANI (and are thus not appropriate here), and he both graciously agreed, and also graciously agreed that they should be refactored to make this discussion separate from the actual topic. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The current quote is the following:

I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

To me, that provides enough context. However, if you feel it doesn't, I would be happy to discuse it. I do not think that stating that I am "taking out of context" the quote is fair. However, I would be more than willing to discuss adding more to it.Casprings (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What part of "this is not the subject of the ANI, and thus not appropriate to continue on an ANI" did you not understand?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It was brought up by user:Arzel as a violation of WP:BLP. As such, it is open to being adressed, at least in a limited manner. Again, I would be more then happy to discuss it further to understand what user:Arzel thinks should be added to that quote.Casprings (talk) 19:10, 29 May 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.

Proposal: topic ban for Jax 0677 regarding templates

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

---

As follow up to an RFC/U without serious effect on User:Jax 0677 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to up the quality of the templates he produces, I have no other option than request a topic ban for this user. The outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jax 0677 makes clear that there is no progress at all (at best, the result was very, very temporary). The RFC/U was filed by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and TenPoundHammer ([58]) and endorsed by 11 different edits, including me. ([59]).

The topic ban I am seeking is one to prevent Jax 0677 from creating templates at all for a prolonged period of time.

The talkpage and the archives of the talkpage of mr. Jax show a worrying list of speedy deletions, proposed deletions and nominations for deletion (User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 1, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 2, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 3, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 4, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 5, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 6, User talk:Jax 0677) of his templates.

The discussions on the pages "Template for Deletion" often have the same pattern.

1. this, this and this are not linked to each other (random selection: [60], [61], [62], [63])
2. WP:NENAN is just an essay. (usually when he has no arguments regarding to the content of the template).
3. the article is too long to add wikilinks ([64]
4. I don't know how to add wikilinks to articles.([65]) That is quite remarkable after creating about a thousand (1000) templates?

Each and every template for discussion gets a drawn out battle to preserve the template, many times to the point of filibustering. (Example: [66]) And many of his templates are deleted, rescued by others or suddenly get enough relevant links to be kept (after nomination).([67])

Interesting is also his habit to "claim". I don't have a clue how many page names he has already claimed by making a redirect on the name of an album to the name of the group. That must be hundreds. Unfortunately, he did the same with templates. To be precise 179 times. The discussion page shows quite nicely that he is in fact gaming the system and has always a nice pointy policy/essay to waive with, while on the other hand claiming that WP:NENAN is just an essay. I must admit, after being hammered at this point he did not do it again. The nasty part is that I don't have the idea that he would have stopped this behaviour when he was not hammered for it.

It is quite a pattern that he moves from this to that, makes a mess of it and than apologizes for that because he is new on the subject as if there are no manuals or other editors to ask for help or advice.([68], [69], [70])

I see no improvement in the quality of his templates but I do see a lot of effort put in his dodgy work by others, be it in the drawn out discussion or in plain improving his work. I have given up hope that he can improve to a reasonable standard with templates, so I propose a topic ban to prevent him from creating new templates at all. The Banner talk 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not exactly a regular at TfD or wherever, but I've participated in the RFC/U, and I've seen this user's misdeeds firsthand at AfD. This needs to stop, now, and they refuse almost all attempts to help them, so a topic ban is required. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Like Luke, I'm not a big template guy, but every encounter I've had with this editor has involved a raging case of WP:IDHT, which is the case here too. At some point he'll come here and tell us that WP:BITE somehow protects him, ignoring the fact that after 25,000+ edits, he's no newbie. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't say there haven't been improvements to his template creations, particularly after the RfC/U, but if there is someone who just wants to do the bare minimum to get things done and move on, it would be Jax. Before, he would just create navboxes with only 5 links to pass the threshhold of WP:NENAN, despite the fact the navbox topic had plenty of candidate articles to include; but now, it's as if he's looking for those topic candidates that have the bare mininum of possibly related articles and creating those navboxes, so recent TfDs are just about what counts or not to meet "the rule of five". Because he can usually fix or improve them after being taken to TfD, he can claim a fairly large success rate at TfD. Unfortunately, that's part of Jax's problem. He takes pride in this and refuses to understand how much of everyone's time he is wasting (including his own) through the debate process. The goal of the RfC/U was to reduce the number of navboxes he's created taken to TfD and that's not happening per Banner's comments and my points above. He likes to point out that WP:NENAN is just an essay, yet his sole motivation seems to be driven by another essay, WP:ANOEP, per his comments here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The RFC/U generated a brief improvement in behaviour but that as rather temporary. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. His behavior improved temporarily, but I see no evidence that he's learned. I'm still seeing him filibuster to save his templates, and I'm still seeing him rushing out templates with too little content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support based on his demonstration below that he doesn't really understand the problem. Six months, maybe? He's been creating templates for about two years now, so a six-month break would be pretty significant. Perhaps others would prefer a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't know whether it's a problem of competence or intentional disregard of others' advice, but Jax 0677 needs to stop making templates. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Jax taking a break from creating templates seems like a wise step.  Gong show 15:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit in limbo about the scope of the topic ban. Banning him from creating new templates is an essential part. But must he be banned from the Template for Discussion-procedure too? His past production should be checked and without doubt that will some new TfD-discussions with the aforementioned effects. The Banner talk 11:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I would suggest it be a ban on any activity relating to templates, broadly construed. The only exception would be the usual one of reverting obvious vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Response from Jax_0677

Oppose - While I have made mistakes in the past with my navigation templates (hereinafter referred to as "navboxes"), I have dramatically improved the quality of my work over the past few months, and in my opinion, have made no dramatic mistakes in navboxes since April 25, 2013 when the RfC against me was proposed for closure. The navboxes that I have created during the last few months have had all related articles that I can contemplate included in the navbox, and the navbox has been included in all of the articles in question, with the exception of some of the "Related" articles. While eleven editors approved of the RfC, a topic ban is not a popularity contest.

The majority of the navboxes that I have created have NOT been deleted, and many have been kept. According to WP:POORLY and WP:TOOSHORT, many of these navboxes should never have been brought to TfD in the first place , as the navboxes had the potential to satisfy the requirements despite their imperfections.

To the alleged "pattern":

1. Navboxes are designed to improve connectivity
2. I (as well as others) have replied that WP:NENAN is an essay for navboxes that have four links (not including the parent article). The four links do not usually connect to one another without the navbox. Navboxes for Template:Anata and Template:Analog Rebellion have indeed been kept after TfD with four links. In some cases, NENAN was argued long before the "rule of five" excluded the parent article.
3. If an article is long, it will be difficult to find the links within the article. For this reason, I have added the navbox, which I believe I have the right to do so long as there are a sufficient number of related articles. Additionally, I cannot predict which articles will be deleted before the navbox is finished. I therefore allowed Template:Flynn Adam to go forth and be deleted, because the articles were deleted after I finished the navbox. I created Template:Beyond Fear over one year ago before I understood that the NENAN "rule of five" does not include certain related articles.
4. What I meant is that I can not find a good place in the articles to add the links. It is much easier to add one navbox to five or more articles than it is to add four "See Also" sections.

I am well within my right to dispute any legitimate charges against me or the navboxes that I create by stating legitimate points about why the navbox should be kept. According to the filibuster article on Wikipedia, "A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal", which I can not do on a written forum.

I have not "claimed" a template name in more than several months. I stopped claiming template names weeks before the September 14th RfD was filed against me on dozens of articles. Fixing this error was a large undertaking, which I completed in a timely manner. I am also well within my right to redirect the name of an album or song to the applicable musician or ensemble per WP:NSONG.

I have only recently started creating navboxes about universities, and while the community does not want for me to make mistakes on these navboxes, it is going to happen. These navboxes have had all of the links about the university that I can contemplate, have been placed on all of the articles except some related articles, which is all that I have been told to do. In fact, 100% of the university navboxes that I have created that were brought to TfD have been kept, with few links added to them.

The Banner is not able to name one navbox that I have created since April 25, 2013 (one month ago tomorrow) AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure that was not done at least reasonably correctly per User_talk:The_Banner#Topic_Ban_Proposal. The mistake I made was listing LBC Crew under "Related" instead of "Musical ensembles", which in my opinion, is minimal at best, considering that the four other links in the navbox do not all link to one another.

Niteshift36 has repeatedly called me the "D" word on numerous occasions.

I feel that this Topic Ban, and many of the TfDs being filed against me are [out of frustration] that my navboxes are not perfect instead of an effort to improve the encyclopedia. I feel that I am being hammered just for making small mistakes.

Again, while I have made mistakes in the past, this is not a popularity contest, nor a device by which to punish users who are attempting to create an encyclopedia. Topic Bans are an effort to protect the encyclopedia from users that want to damage it. The fact that my recent mistakes have been minimal at best, that many of the TfDs are simply walking out of my past (which should curb over time now that I have added to a navbox every article that I can contemplate and have added that navbox to all of the articles in that navbox with the exception of some related articles) and that I was new to university navboxes and coloring them [in some ways (such as when editing an article on a topic outside our usual scope) even the most experienced among us are still newcomers] that a topic ban on anything other than universities is not in order at this time.

I can not control which of my creations are taken to TfD, but I can act to make my navboxes better.

I will be happy to answer any questions about navboxes that you have, or to address any issues stated in the Topic Ban that I may not have covered. No question is out of bounds, and I will answer them all, even if the answer is that it is none of your business.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely,

Jax_0677 --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses, excuses and poor Jax is the innocent victim of a bunch of nasty guys. Backed up with a lot of distracting links to other pages. Unfortunately, your answer only illustrates that you don't understand or plainly ignore the problem. The Banner talk 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - The vast majority of my efforts have contributed to a fuller encyclopedia, and I have addressed all issues against me here. I only said that "a topic ban is not a popularity contest", and The Banner seems to be acting sarcastically here.

1. Which links are distracting, and why are they distracting?
2. What exactly/specifically do I not "understand"?
3. If The Banner is ignoring my questions, how can The Banner critique me for ignoring the problem?
4. I have asked The Banner this before, and The Banner could not come up with one legitimate answer, so I ask again. Can one navbox that I wrote related to music started AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure (on April 25, 2013) that was not done at least reasonably correctly be named? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1) What is "the D word"? Maybe I need to use it again. It can't be "dick" because I said you were being a dick once in that discussion. Of course, call a spade a spade might apply here. 2)What does that AFD have to do with this other than to be a perfect example of how you latch onto a single essay (in that case WP:CHEAP) and just repeat it over and over as if it were given from above on 2 stone tablets? 3) Are you over the age of 12? If you are, the whole "Niteshift called me a name" routine is fairly childish looking.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you fail to grasp that your behaviour and sloppy work is the problem here. You did indeed enough work to fill the encyclopedia, but your work is too often just ballast. More letters and digits, no worthy content. The Banner talk 18:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - To Niteshift36:

1. The "D" word is what you just said. Policy states that one should be cautious about referring to another individual by using that article.
2. The fact that Niteshift36 referred to me using that article during the AfD once is enough to call Niteshift36's character into question.
3. I am over the age of 12, but I won't give out my age. The fact that Niteshift36 referred to me using that article calls Niteshift36's character into question.

To The Banner:

1. I have justified most if not all of my responses, and The Banner has the burden of proof that I have not. The Banner has failed to produce any "sloppy work" on music templates that I have started in the past 30 days, nor has The Banner proven that I have filibustered.
2. I would hardly call my work ballast with zero worthy content. I have produced several hundred templates over the past several months. The point is, that the goal of a topic ban is not to reprimand, but is to protect the encyclopedia. My navboxes have been of decent quality as of late. The things that are going to TfD are walking out of my past, and in some cases were started more than one year ago. I allowed Template:Beyond Fear and "Template:Arkaea" to proceed unabated because I realized after the fact that many "Related" articles do not count toward the NENAN rule of five.

To All:
While I understand that some of my templates should go to TfD, I am very frustrated that there are MANY templates at TfD that should not have ever been brought there in the first place , which includes templates with 5 relevant links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you understand that some your templates should go to TfD, I recommend not creating such templates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - In many of those cases, such as "template:dnbtu" and "template:unco", hindsight is 20/20. What I should have said is that "While I understand that some of my templates should have gone to TfD..." --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if this were a RFC about my character, your reply might have something to contribute. As it stands, it's a pointless red herring. First, my saying that you're being a dick isn't a matter of character. It's behavior. Second, none of that has any bearing on your inability to follow the standards. One could easily call your avoidance of the discussing your own actions by complaining about the actions of someone else months ago could be called dickish. And I didn't ask you to divulge your age. I asked if you were over the age of 12, an age where the "he called me a name" thing usually stops looking like a valid defense. Either way, I highly doubt bitching whining complaining about it will convince others to change their support of topic banning you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - OK, I have read WP:BLUDGEON, and I realize that I may need to respond to several items at once with shorter answers (i.e. "Navbox has a sufficient number of links") instead of responding to one item at a time with longer comments. With that being said, if my music navboxes have been of acceptable quality for the past month, if several of the unchanged navboxes have passed TfD, my most recent university navboxes have also been of acceptable quality, and the issue is the method by which I participate in TfD discussions , I think it would be prudent to only ban me from TfD, not from actually creating navboxes. Assuming that I were banned from TfD, I would have no method by which to defend navboxes that I have created. In the interest of answering all questions, calling me the "D" word is in violation of WP:CIVIL. Thoughts?
Additionally, I feel that have been unduly scolded for making simple the simple mistake of placing {{tianu}} and {{wtw}} on the wrong people's pages. I know people do not want me to make any mistakes, but it is going to happen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Outside editor comment - I think you've missed the point, Jax. We all make mistakes but the issue here is not that people don't want you making mistakes. It's that they don't want you making the same mistakes, repeatedly, ad nauseam, hence the proposal for a topic ban. The fact that 11, not the usual 2, but 11 editors endorsed an RFC on your editing is very, very damning. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I have read WP:BLUDGEON and I have recently improved the quality of my navboxes. The fact is that we are where we are. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Still worrying about "the D word"? Just reinforces what I've been saying. Keep proving me correct. It's becoming a parody at this point. As for your misuse of {tianu}, here is an idea....just stop using it. Stop being the template police and just keep your nose out of other people's affairs. You clearly have enough trouble managing your own affairs. Leave the misplaced concerns for someone else to worry about. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I was only pointing out a violation of WP:CIVIL. I have kept {{tianu}} for users who have few edits and/or made their first edits only weeks ago. I don't believe I am acting like template police if many of my navboxes with over 6 links are being sent to TfD and being kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, maybe you should just keep your nose out of it since you're not doing such a good job. And clearly, you weren't paying close attention and checking edit histories or you wouldn't have placed it on pages with substantial numbers of edits. Then you turn around and blame it on BOLD....that's your problem. You never just admit an error, you always use some essay to justify your mistakes and then repeat it over and over. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Niteshift36, "I admit that the statements that I have given during TfD discussions have been lengthy, and perhaps I need to shorten them". I have checked edit histories as of late before using {{tianu}}, so I am learning from my mistakes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• And why? Not because you listened to the people there. Because you read another essay. In any case, I still support your topic ban. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - The essay clarified what people were saying. Also, if my statements during TfD are the problem, why should I be banned from creating new templates? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ban on my participation in TfD versus ban on my creating navboxes

I notice that this proposal for topic ban arose out of two things:

1. My imperfections surrounding University navboxes
2. My statements given during TfD discussions

I have only been working on university navboxes for a short period of time, and have improved the quality of such navboxes dramatically over the past few days. With that being said, I am not certain that it is prudent to ban me from creating navboxes. I admit that the statements that I have given during TfD discussions have been lengthy, and perhaps I need to shorten them. However, if my navboxes have improved to an acceptable level as of late, prohibiting me from creating new navboxes may not necessarily protect the encyclopedia. While I have made mistakes in the past, the fact is that we are where we are. Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We have seen that the quality of your work collapsed as soon as you had the idea we were not looking any more. The Banner talk 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I never had the idea that no one was looking, and no one can prove that is the case. At User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_3#Megas, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars told me:

1. Add all pertinent and relevant articles to the navbox, not just 5 (unless that's all there is).
2. Add the navbox to each of the articles listed in the navbox (although not necessarily to all "related articles")

He never said anything about the formatting of the navbox nor that all related articles do not count toward the rule of five, and again, that was the first time I have created university navboxes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The final proposal

I propose a six month topic ban from any activity relating to templates, broadly construed. The Banner talk 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply - This statement is vague, and should at least be clarified. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not vague so much as all encompassing. The proposal can be basically summed up as a topic ban from the creation of templates, discussion of templates at TfD (whether they are your creations or not) and editing of existing templates. (If I've missed anything, please feel free to add them in.) Blackmane (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I do not know why I seem to care or am mentioning anything here, but I would rather see a user like this mentored in the proper creation of said templates than simply told not to create any for any length of time. I firmly believe that we learn by doing, making mistakes, being told what specific mistakes we made, and then not making those mistakes again. The first step there is doing. I feel that if there was to be a topic ban of sorts imposed, that it should be for no longer than about a month during which time Jax should be reading all of the "How to build a template" documentation and bettering and learning about parser functions, magic words, transclusion, and all of the other goodies that are kind of required if a person really wants to be able to create good templates. I'm going to stop babbling now before this gets tl;dr... Technical 13 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Trying to be perfectly objective, I agree with Technical 13, in that "we learn by doing, making mistakes, being told what specific mistakes we made, and then not making those mistakes again". After being told how to create university navboxes, I have improved the quality of such navboxes dramatically. While {{IPFW}} did not start out ideal, all of the links were still there. Additionally, since I have had few to no issues with existing navboxes, I do not feel it is prudent to preclude me from working on existing navboxes, or to preclude me from working on anything other than navboxes, if that is even the best solution. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This may be an idealistic view, but consider this ban as an enforced sabbatical so that others can look into the ones you have created and deal with them whether they can be kept, improved or, failing that, deleted without having to worry that new problematic templates will appear. In this period, it would be looked upon most favourably if you did go and look for a mentor to discuss template creation. The question that some may raise would why did it take an RFC/U and a topic ban proposal for you to consider this as opposed to doing exactly that when the first issues were raised with regards to your templates? Blackmane (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I was under the impression that templates could be stubs, just like articles could be stubs (stubs are speedily deleted on Spanish Wikipedia). I will answer the question with a question. What have I done since April 25, 2013 that rises to the level of a template ban, instead of perhaps a ban on university navboxes combined with a ban on participating in ANY template for discussion forums? Also, if a ban is imposed, it needs to be specified whether or not the ban includes userspace navboxes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The ban proposal is not time limited to how far back an editor's behaviour is considered, although common sense is usually applied such that for editors who have been here for years things they did several years ago are generally discounted. However, an editor's actions within the last 6 - 9 months are usually considered fair game for assessment. I don't intend on supporting/opposing as I haven't delved back far enough so making any sort of judgement on incomplete information on my part would not be fair. Unless others make vehement objections to it, i think an allowance for userspace only navboxes would be reasonable. It would be patently ridiculous to topic ban you from making templates and encourage you to learn how to do it better without giving you some sort of area to do your testing and learning. However, I am not familiar with how templates are transcluded around so I'll have to leave that to more experienced voices to discuss. Blackmane (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of a 6-month ban on creating templates and participating in TfD and a 1-month ban on editing templates. After the first month, earlier creations can be improved/fixed/completed, in particular any that are brought to TfD. He can do that without the need to participate in the TfD itself. The improvements must be in line with the concerns raised here and in the RfC/U. Any questions brought up on his talk page should be immediately addressed and no further editing should be done until resolved. However, I will not object to support the harsher ban. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Jax, if it was me, I would jump to indicate that this offer is fair and perhaps request the ability to create sandbox drafts of potential navbox creations to be reviewed by another editor that subscribes to NENAN after 2-3 months. Technical 13 (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's proposal seems reasonable and addresses the issue. I would be in support of this, and also would not object to the harsher ban if this proposal doesn't gain traction. -- Whpq (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - You know what, if I am allowed to create navboxes within my own userspace, I think that I could go along with something like this, with potential eligibility for monitored creation of navboxes after a few weeks. If the quality of my recent templates is an indication, I think this could work. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "a few weeks" unless you consider 10-12 weeks a few. I've gone out of my way to try and help you here Jax (I still have no clue why, I guess I'm just good natured that way), and I've made comments as to what would be your best case scenario and you don't seem to get it. Despite my suggestion, which would have been huge in your favor being able to do it after a few months, you try to squeak it down to a few weeks. That is just not going to fly here.
• I'll give you one last bit of advice before I make my final recommendation and request an uninvolved admin/editor to close this. IF after 2-3 months you have read through all of the template making guides and fully understand how they work and whatnot, and I encourage you to attempt to re-create the whole navbox system on test.wikipedia as a learning exercise, then I would offer that you might want to get a hold of me via email and I would be happy to come back here on your behalf and offer the examples and work you have done on testwiki as examples of your ability to work on templates and an understanding of them. I think that most of the administrators here (although I will be honest that I do not agree with all of them most of the time), are fair enough that they would be willing to relax this ban based on those examples to perhaps Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's proposal. If not, I would be willing to help you go to arbcom based on your demonstration of understanding on testwiki and request some intervention.
• Now, that all being said, I retract my original support of Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's proposal and think that a full "all inclusive template topic ban" is appropriate at this time due to Jax's inability to "get it". Technical 13 (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I left the number of weeks open to interpretation on purpose to allow discussion based on my ability to create navboxes in my user space, as I will agree with 10-12 weeks and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' proposal. What is the URL for test.wikipedia, and to what does "whole navbox system" refer? What exactly is it that do I not "get"? The goal of a ban is to protect the encyclopedia, not to punish users. My most recent music navboxes have been of reasonable quality as far as I can tell, and I have done everything that I can to demonstrate this. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You are talking around yourself 10-12 weeks is the 2-3 months I stated and you made a fool of yourself in my opinion and I no longer wish to play your game. Test wikipedia can be found at http://test.wikipedia.org (since it is so simple, I assume that you spend no time trying to figure it out and will not carry through with my suggestion) and the whole navbox system that you would have to copy over and recreate there (since it is a test wiki and none of it exists there if you want to make other navboxes) would include {{Navbox}} and all of the templates that it uses to be functional. I'll leave figuring out which ones it needs to you as a learning exercise (experiment?). What you don't get is the fact that you did something wrong or something you shan't have done to get yourself here and instead of just saying, "yes sirs and madams, I did do ___ and that was not correct because ___ and I agree to not every do it again, what can I do to make it right?" and then follow up with "thank you for offering me this chance to make things right (or if the case is that there is nothing you can do except sit back and observe and read the documentation then it would be thanks for this learning opportunity)." and taking what-ever offer you can get, you are trying to weasel months into weeks and when caught saying yeah, trying to weasel out of that too... It is very transparent... I'm unwatching this thread now but would be happy to hear from you in 3 months (that is 13.5 weeks by my notes) in an email requesting me to review something you have created on testwiki. Note that there are places to get help with templates if you get stuck and need to ask a question about how to do something with a template outside of en.wikipedia ( http://mediawiki.org http://meta.wikimedia.org IRC )... That being said, I've found getting responses in those places can be difficult and might make one final plea for a little lee-way to allow this user's topic ban to only allow the topic of templates to be brought up by this user in an attempt to learn how a specific function works in an appropriate venue such as VPT or WikiProject Templates. Anyways, I'm done discussing it. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I am playing no "games", and there is no proof that I am doing this nor that I am "weaseling". I have admitted to making navboxes that are incomplete in the past , and have worked to the best of my ability to correct this issue, and will continue to work to correct this issue. I can not promise 100% that I will not make any more mistakes with navboxes or anything else for that matter. As Op47 said, if a featured article has an incomplete navbox, it might no longer be a featured article. I have not made any horrible mistakes with music navboxes since April 25, 2013, and have not made any horrible mistakes with university navboxes either in the past week or two. I have answered all of the questions placed before me, I have worked diligently to correct the issues presented. I will do my best to shorten my comments in XfD discussions. I do not know what else I can do at this point, because no matter what I am doing now , it is never enough. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support 6 month ban on anything to do with templates, broadly construed, as proposed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 months, broadly construed. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 month ban on anything to do with templates, broadly construed, as proposed (tho with an exemption for Jax's own userspace).
  Given the scale and duration of Jax's disruption, I would readily support a longer ban ... but I guess 6 months is enough for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 month ban. I wasn't going to throw my hat into the ring, but will support based on the recalcitrant behaviour displayed here. I'd also support an exemption for their own userspace.Blackmane (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban. I've been lurking, and this just looks like a completely intractable behavior problem. I'd also like to add that I think that userspace edits should be allowed, and that by petition (edit request? ask here?) template-like pages in userspace could be moved into template space and added to articles, but it needs to be done by an admin familiar with the case, not by Jax him/her self. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per BrownHairedGirl et al. I'd also support a provision to reset the TB to "day one" in the event of any related disruptive editing, broadly construed. And I hate supporting restrictions... Begoon ^talk 03:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Given that the more lenient proposal has failed to gain traction. -- Whpq (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Punishment for my history versus protection of the encyclopedia

Distraction from the current discussion. Filibustering is not going to be looked on kindly. Blackmane (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am starting this section to determine whether the ban is being implemented as punishment for what I did long before the RfC was proposed for closure, or protection of the encyclopedia. My music navboxes have been of reasonable quality since April 25, 2013, and no one has proven otherwise. My university navboxes started in the past week after the first TfDs for my university navboxes (none of which were deleted) have been of reasonable quality. There is no evidence to prove that the quality of my navigation boxes suffered because no one was looking. People are looking to music navboxes that were created before the RfC was proposed for closure for information about the quality of my navboxes. My conduct at XfD discussions and the quality of my university navboxes are being used to propose a ban on music navboxes. If anything, the ban should not apply to music navboxes (or my own user space for that matter). I have apologized for my mistakes, I have answered all of the concerns placed before me, and have worked to prevent these mistakes from occurring again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Is it just me or does anyone else find that this user is just being DISRUPTIVE in flogging this dead horse at this point? I have gone from a position of wanting this user to have another opportunity to learn and develop into a well respected editor to thinking that this user should be blocked from editing for two months and have a concurrent one year topic ban on all things template and XfD related. Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC) This is the same sort of behaviour Jax exhibits in other discussions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Jax: You keep trying to frame this discussion into little chunks. The proposal does not distinguish between various types of navboxes. Your behaviour in creating all types of navboxes has been disruptive, and your behaviour has been unco-operative. Your short period of improvement was voided by a backslide in behaviour. Let's put it this way, you've managed to take an originally uninvolved neutral editor (user:Technical 13), and tax his patience to the point where he has withdrawn his support for applying a more lenient sanction. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Reply - Fine, until the community can prove this is protection instead of punishment and address the six points, I'm done. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Nobody has to 'prove' anything. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and if the community decides that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to prevent you from editing, it can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Comment If you are dissatisfied with the apparent and expected outcome of this discussion and think it unfair, I encourage you to take your comments and concerns to arbitration. I might be led to think at this point that may actually be your best bet. Technical 13 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) The protection of the encyclopaedia is the one and only reason I have requested and proposed the topic ban. It is a fact that many, many of your templates were substandard. I don't know how many times you were told to up the quality of your work and read the relevant documentation. It did not help. Even the RfC/U, quite a strong signal that something is seriously wrong, was largely ignored and/or had only a temporary effect. As an engineer you should be able to find, read and understand documentation and apply it in your work. But you failed in that. Something normal as "looking how others did it" seems to be out of your reach. Navigation templates should add something serious to the encyclopaedia but you often added incomplete and misleading templates. In my opinion, that is plain damaging the encyclopaedia by giving incorrect information and by preventing you from damaging the encyclopaedia I am protecting it. The Banner talk 17:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Comment - This pointless, disruptive sub-section is a fantastic example of why the topic ban is required. Jax 0677 is disruptive, they refuse to listen to advice, apart from when they're threatened with a block, and they're very frequently pointy. They refuse to follow guidelines, and even their more recent creations are only half-done at best. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for closer

I'm requesting any un-involved individual to close this, there is no need to waste any more time here and WP:SNOW has become apparent. Technical 13 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Request Merge

Hello all, I would like to request help concerning the merging of the following articles: Panoramic photography and Digital panoramic function. The proposal was made in 2011 but still nothing has been decided. I can help merging the content. Thank you very much! Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I redirected Digital panoramic function to Panoramic photography as I didn't see anything useful to merge. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nathan Johnson! Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ecolon

This article was deleted on 3 December 2012 by the admin JamesBWatson who cited as reason for the deletion (G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Androstachys) in violation of ban or block). Previous nominations of other articles created by user Androstachys were dismissed since the articles were found to be useful, and that being banned or blocked did not automatically mean that work prior to the ban was without merit. Could this article be restored and could the wording of G5 be reviewed? Thank you Paul venter (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is your attempt to discuss this matter with JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) prior to bringing this to AN? You also failed to notify him about this discussion despite very clear instructions to do so. As for the matter at hand, I fully support any Admin who deletes an article that was created by a blocked/banned user in violation of their block/ban under G5, regardless of any 'merit' the article may have. WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 12:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Echoing GS above, where's the discussion with the deleting admin? JBW is an admin who's generally open to reasonable discussion, and will make decisions based on the good of the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto about the discussion with JBW first bit. That said, this is kind of an interesting case, and I'm not sure whether G5 strictly applies. The account that created the article wasn't blocked until a year after they created it. It was blocked as a sock of (this very) Paul venter, whose last block was three years before the article was created, much less deleted as G5. Nor can I find any indication that Paul was ever actually banned. So, the article was created by a sockpuppet, yes, but it was not created in violation of a ban or block (as years separate the creation of the page from any block that might be relevant, and there is no ban at all). So, technically speaking, Paul is correct that this was not eligibile for G5. Should it have been, per the spirit of the rule? That's a different question (one to which I still think the answer is "no", if only because CSD criteria are meant to be strictly interpreted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• On further investigation, I presume JBW used G5 because the block rationale for Androstachys is mis-leading; it states "new account of community-banned long-term disruptive editor Paul venter / Rotational / etc." - therefore one can see why JBW used G5 in good faith. GiantSnowman 13:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, to be sure; I never doubted that JBW was acting in good faith, and didn't mean to imply that he wasn't. I wouldn't pin any sort of blame on him. The fact that the deletion was technically improper remains, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • True; I would say we need to restore the article and then consider our options i.e. AFD. GiantSnowman 13:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Restored. Article needs work if it's going to stay, though, even as a stub; it's not sourced, and currently reads a little bit like a "why Ecolon is better than what's on the market today" puff piece rather than an encyclopedic stub. AfD would be not unreasonable in its current state. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've stubbed it and tagged for improvement. GiantSnowman 13:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• An edit conflict prevented me from posting a comment which I wrote without seeing that Writ Keeper had restored the article. Most of what I wrote is now redundant, but I will post an excerpt from it: :The arguments put forward by Paul venter do not constitute reasons for restoring the article, but there are other reasons for doing so. Androstachys was blocked by Hesperian, with a log entry that said "Long term abuse: new account of community-banned long-term disruptive editor Paul venter / Rotational / etc". I took Hesperian's word for it that Paul venter was community-banned, but searching now I can find no evidence of that. I will ask Hesperian to comment, in case he/she knows of something relevant that is not evident to the rest of us. For what it is worth, if Paul venter (alias Androstachys) had simply posted a request on my talk page, saying that he was not banned, I would have restored the article well over an hour ago. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hopefully this will be a helpful timeline:
  • Paul venter (talk · contribs) was created on 18 February 2006.
  • Paul venter was blocked on 5 July 2007 for 24 hours (copyright violations). The account did not resume editing after the block expired until years later.
  • Raasgat (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet, appeared on 5 July 2007 and then stopped editing in mid-September 2007. The account was abandoned.
  • Roxithro (talk · contribs), another sockpuppet, was created on 15 July 2007 right after Raasgat. Both Raasgat and Roxithro were used at the same time. Both were abandoned around 14 September 2007.
  • Rotational (talk · contribs), another sockpuppet, was created on 14 September 2007 after he stopped editing under Raasgat and Roxithro.
  • There was a sockpuppet report on 11 November 2007 that resulted in indef blocks to Roxithro, Raasgat, and Rotational. Paul venter received a 72-hour block as the sock master. Shortly thereafter the block on Rotational was lifted by Firsfron because Paul venter suggested he'd rather edit under that name instead if I recall correctly (here's the conversation). Firsfron specifically says, "If you are the same person as these other accounts, I can have the other accounts blocked and you can use solely this account." When unblocking Rotational, however, the Paul venter account remained unblocked.
  • Rotational continued to edit and eventually was indef-blocked after this AN/I thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Rotational. (1 December 2009)
  • Androstachys (talk · contribs) was created shortly thereafter on 10 December 2009. He edited under that until Hesperian blocked on 10 August 2011.
  • The Paul venter account begins editing again on 8 November 2011 to present. With the exception of a few edits in 2008, the last edit made from that account before then was before the first sockpuppet was created on 5 July 2007. After the Rotational account was indef blocked, Paul moved back to his open account that Firsfron should have blocked as a result of unblocking Rotational. Isn't that block avoidance? Hopping back into your original account that just happens to be available to avoid an indef block...
• I hope that's useful. It is true that Rotational was not community banned but indef blocked in the AN/I discussion. It had been about 2 years from the discussion of Rotational's indef block to Hesperian's block of Androstachys where he described it as a community ban, so I'd forgive him the mistaken block log entry. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 19:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe my block to be correct as written: that is, I believe that Paul was community-banned under one of his incarnations at some point. But I'm not interested in spending any number of hours trawling the archives in order to justify a two-year-old block, as I do not support the deletion of Paul's contributions on these grounds anyhow. The issues with Paul were always around his interactions with others, not the quality of his content; and for all I know those issues are a thing of the past now. Hesperian

If anyone wants to explore further, some of the relevant links are

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Jonty Rhodes article and edits by Paul Venter
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive213#User:Paul venter
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive220#User:Paul venter
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223#User:Paul venter and User:Berks105 engaged in some sort of edit war
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive295#User:Raasgat - possible sockpuppet of User:Paul venter
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive381#Ownership and accusations of wikistalking
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#User:Rotational conflict
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#User:Rotational
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive537#Rotational
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive539#Rotational
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#Rotational.2C again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#User:Rotational volating his editing restriction.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive788#Paul venter - issue with reliable sources

Hesperian 02:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(The following contribution has been copied from Paul venter's talkpage):

Hesperian is still, it seems, of the opinion that you were community banned, but since nobody has produced a record of when or where this happened, I don't know whether it is true or not. However, it is evident that you created the article while evading at least one block, and whether the block was based on a ban or not is of little relevance, as the deletion reason "Creation by a banned or blocked user" is still valid. The undeletion of the article took place because the deletion was believed to have been made on the basis of a false impression, but it is now clear that that was not the case. On a different but related issue, your request for undeletion says "Previous nominations of other articles created by user Androstachys were dismissed since the articles were found to be useful, and that being banned or blocked did not automatically mean that work prior to the ban was without merit". However, the policy that pages created by editors evading blocks can be deleted does not depend on lack of "merit" of those pages. It is true that there are some administrators who choose to ignore this particular policy, because they personally disagree with it. My own belief, however, is that the job of an administrator is to administer policy, not to use one's administrative powers to further one's own personal view. No administrator is ever obliged to take action that he or she doesn't personally agree with, but undoing an existing action because of one's own view, even though that view is contrary to policy, is, in my opinion, unacceptable, and so requesting undeletion on such grounds is invalid. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Also see here Paul venter (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle is now updated again

After the fuckup with bits.wikimedia.org before due to memory issues in jsmin+.php, I've now splitted up twinkle in 23 separate files [71] . The new MW:AN3 reporting thing in the arv module is now functional, and while it might need some more love, it works and hopefully results in either better reports or more reports :) _→AzaToth 16:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is "splitted" a word? :) Rockfang (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

sort of--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:N-HH automatically assuming bad faith on my part, providing combative rather than constructive criticism

Also on AN/I, were it belongs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently opened a discussion on problems I saw with the intro on the talk page of the Fascism article with repetition on points. N-HH has responded by automatically assuming bad faith on my part, accusing me of wanting to take over the intro, and presumably that I am not open to criticism for intro content. I will admit that in the past I have perhaps gone too far with WP:BOLD when I have seen material lacking in intros and main bodies of articles. However this accusation that I am trying to take over the intro is not rational when I specifically opened a talk page discussion on the subject. All of these problems with N-HH started when I got extremely angry and uncivil at him at one point when he was accusing me of incompetence. I reported myself for incivility, and have since apologized on N-HH's talk page, and taken a long time off Wikipedia with some intermitting returns, and am only showing up to advocate changes I view needed. I believe that this is a long-term problem, that N-HH has neither accepted my apology nor has been willing to move on, and that this behaviour may indicate that he is holding a grudge towards me. Still the main issue that I am addressing here is the automatic assumption of bad faith. The following two diffs demonstrate these automatic assumptions: [72], [73]. --R-41 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I can't see what's ANI-worthy here. What action do you want against me? Even if there had not been a pattern of previous behaviour on your part – ranging from mild article ownership and disruptive editing all the way to random abuse and sockpuppetry – it would not be illegal to politely raise a query about actions and motives, while nonetheless focusing, as I have been, on article content. And, in any event, the second diff clearly shows me rowing back from any assumptions about your intentions. N-HH talk/edits 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I dunno -- but perhaps you might try finding compromise edits instead of using the revert button so readily? Sometimes intermediate wording can solve issues far better than reverts do. And charging anyone with "ownership" and the like requires quite a bit more evidence than you muster. If you wish to start an RfC/U on R-41 - do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Well, there were serious problems with parts of the Fascism lead as was, some significant changes and improvements were made and then, as you know, we had an RFC on the difference, which pretty unanimously backed the version that I've since been sticking up for over the past couple of months. Most of the edits since the RFC have been politically motivated borderline vandalism (eg "fascism is socialism!") or barely improvements at all. Reverting those seems fair enough to me; and my having done that a couple of times over several weeks is certainly not something for ANI. As for dragging other users to noticeboards or into the bureaucratic stocks, I have neither the time or inclination. I'd sooner rely on people being persuaded that not every contribution they make is as helpful as they might think it is. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I used an anon account as part of WP:CLEAN START, so that I would not face prejudice for previous editing actions. But that didn't work. During that incident several months ago, when I reported myself for my inappropriate statements I made, N-HH got angry at administrators and accused them of being friendly towards me in a way condoning what I did, an administrator responded by warning him about the fact that he was not adhering to WP:AGF of the administrators, and asked approximately "did you leave your AGF at the front door this morning?". N-HH is doing this again, and I believe that it is possible that N-HH is doing this because he may be holding a grudge towards me over what I said several months ago. Therefore I repeat: I apologize for my extremely inappropriate comments I said several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Actions that I request should be undertaken: I want a clear warning to N-HH on his behaviour: to stop posting automatic assumptions of bad faith on talk pages that are about article content that aim belittle the content of what I have added based on implicit accusations against the nature of my character that could manipulate other users' perceptions of what I have contributed. If N-HH continues to post automatic assumptions of bad faith on article talk pages after being warned, I believe a 24 hour block should be put in place, hopefully to demonstrate that automatic assumptions of bad faith are not accepted on Wikipedia, and to encourage N-HH to change his behaviour. If it continues afterwards, I will request stronger sanctions. These public declarations of automatic assumption of bad faith on my part by N-HH has gone on for months now, in spite of me having taken long breaks from editing and apologizing for earlier unconstructive behaviour, this needs to end.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) If he really believes that I am acting in a damaging manner to the Wikipedia Project, then he open up an RfC/U on me, and request administrative review of my actions. He should not be posting his perceptions of the nature of a user's contributions on talk pages about article content. --R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Just a reminder of what AGF actually says: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism ... Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others". You know, like constantly asserting that I am "holding a grudge" against you. N-HH talk/edits 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Automatically assuming bad faith that you have done regardless of what I am contributing is not productive, especially posting accusations of the nature of my editing behaviour on article talk pages about content to influence other users' perceptions of my contributions. There is a place to make such complaints: that is RfC/U, but that should not be posted on an article talk page. Instead of discussing with me how to get the best ideas of all the editors involved in discussion and providing constructive criticism, you are combative, as Collect has mentioned above you simply revert my edits and condemn my edits for mistakes rather than working constructively. Also, take a look at WP:GRUDGE, I think it is reasonable to observe your user-to-user behaviour with me and make the conclusion that you are holding a grudge because you are still holding me in contempt for what I did several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC) N-HH has added new combative accusations against me on Talk:Fascism at this diff: [74]. N-HH's combative accusations are that I am making "arbitrary" searches that are "without any regard" for the text. I have read material on Mussolini's speeches before, including in a university course where I read that exact quote. I have Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 right in front of me. Yes I use Google Books because the content of those are easily verifiable by people who may want to investigate the content of sources used. N-HH needs to engage in more constructive behaviour, if N-HH has constuctive criticism on what I am proposing that could involve co-operative effort on working out how to improve content, that would be the best course of action. But these combative accusations about the nature of my behaviour need to stop being posted on article talk pages on content, if N-HH believes I am damaging the Wikipedia Project in such manners, he should open up an RfC/U.--R-41 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC) This was left unclosed, and this is an ongoing issue.--R-41 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC) I have looked at this issue briefly, with no prior knowledge. User:R-41: Please provide real evidence that you are being mistreated, rather than restating that allegation. Several users and administrators have considered your editing to be tendentious. Unless you can establish that you are right and they are wrong, then by pursuing this issue here, you are just increasing the level of controversy. You have basically three choices. First, you can go away. I don't think that you will. Second, you can drop this thread, and let the process work. Third, you can continue posting here, and then it is likely that you will go away. Please drop this thread. You are wasting electrons. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with WP:FRS?

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.

---

Every time I try to edit the feedback request service page, it goes through, but I always get this kind of error:

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service&action=submit, from 10.64.0.123 via cp1007.eqiad.wmnet (squid/2.7.STABLE9) to 10.2.2.1 (10.2.2.1) Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 31 May 2013 08:30:03 GMT

If anyone could help, that would be great. Thanks! -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 08:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the Numbermaniac managed to edit the page.[75]--Salix (talk): 11:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I can edit the page, but I always get this error. The page takes a very long time to submit, but comes with that error. But it still gets through. I just don't understand why it is happening. -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does seem to take longer than it should. This is a technical issue rather than an administrator one and you would be better asking on Village pump technical.--Salix (talk): 12:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I shall do so. -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 12:32, 31 May 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.

Naomi Thompson

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.

---

co-wrote the UK #62 hit The Sun Machine and was a member of Afrodiziak. I've already asked Fang Aili and Coren to restore, but when I checked Fang had edited once in the past year and Coren hadn't edited this side of the month - could someone else restore it to User:Launchballer/Naomi Thompson?--Launchballer 08:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. There's not a lot in it about Thompson, though. One mention of her name and that's it. Peridon (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that clearly did not have English as their first language.--Launchballer 09:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems the article is deleted. Andrew Stiff (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's currently in my userspace undergoing repair.--Launchballer 10:29, 31 May 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.

Personal attack and ownership of User:Tabarez

User:Tabarez was warned to stop edit warring in this article here. Also he has a long history of copy right violation with multiple warnings in his user page. (He blanked it). He is a member of campaign of one of the candidates of the upcoming presidential [76], and he want to use colors for his candidate without providing a source. He restarted his edit war [77] and after my warning he attacked me in Persian [78] (Here is a translation of what he said: "This section doesn't need references. After a week of useless discussion with you, I finally understand how stupid you are". I think that he believes that this article belongs to him and he wants to promote his candidate with English Wikipedia.Farhikht (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also I made a request on COI noticeboard here some days ago and I'm still waiting the answer of admins.Farhikht (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In all of our conversations, I conservated practices and I don't insult to him anymore. I think he knows the article is belong to him not me! As he reverted edits of other users. As I know and I asks from other users, color don't need sources and in inbox sources did not shows. All articles about election have color if it's not officially announced. I'm a member of Ghalibaf's campaign but I don't add any partial note to the articles as you can see in my history.Tabarez (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So if I roll in and set that candidate's color to some flavor of hot pink, that would be ok? Or would it not be better to have the correct, official color, and to have a source that we can point to if someone comes in to change it? We don't ask for sources just to be douchebags - having sources protects the information once it's there by confirming it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is discussion about the sources on the talk page... surely for something as simple as a color, primary sources would work? I imagine we have bigger fish to fry, so to speak. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And what about his personal attacks?Farhikht (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, there are no primary sources. This user provided a poster of a candidate and says that because the color of the poster is gray so the official color is gray.Farhikht (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read, a simple as colors don't need source. It only separate candidates from each. Colors don't need source as I ask from other users but you do it in your personal!!! You said my personal attack. Which you mean? You said I promote my candidate in the article. Where? Adding color for an article mean promoting a candidate??!!! Tabarez (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) Due to the high tension and flinging of insults and other adrenaline amplified responses I see here, I would recommend that both Farhikht and Tabarez have themselves a read of WP:CALM and WP:CIVIL and take two days from commenting on this discussion here or on any other talk page/discussion to allow themselves to come back and discuss this from a new perspective. I would personally think much more highly of either or both of these involved individuals if they could do that. Technical 13 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But why I should reed WP:CIVIL? And which insult you means? and you may know that I'm not the first who complain this user.Farhikht (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin wanted to close/evaluate Village pump discussion on partial disambiguation

The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Partially_disambiguated_titles

There is disagreement on whether the discussion achieved consensus about what to do. An evaluation by an uninvolved admin would be greatly appreciated by everyone involved, I'm sure. Thanks. --B2C 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In future, you're looking for WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Just in case any admins watch the 'new editor getting started' RecentChanges tag...

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Change_to_the_.27new_editor_getting_started.27_tag for an update about which edits will be tagged. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for closure decision on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

In a recent decision to not close two discussions on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, the administrator closing the discussions, User:Nathan_Johnson, stated that "both threads have died down and been archived. If this issue is still in dispute, I would suggest starting a WP:RFC." Which I did go ahead and start an WP:RFC, here.

However, the more I think about it, the more problem I have with this close. The discussions were old but the consensus they demonstrate hasn't changed. Rather the discussions were old or not, they demonstrated a policy based consensus for the inclusion of the background section of that article. I would ask that the non-closure be overturned and both discussions be closed with a consensus that the section does not contain WP:OR or WP:SYN. Just because the discussions were archeived does not mean they do not represent policy based consensus. The two discussions are as follows:

• Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012/Archive_1#Background
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections.2C_2012_Background_Section

I mention it because the arguments were brought up at FAC. I would like some closure on issues that I feel are dealt with. Casprings (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What kind of "closure" (your last sentence) do you want? Is there a current disagreement with the article? What was the issue brought up at FAC? (--RA (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC))

There is current disagreement that I am trying to work out. However, this particular issue shouldn't be. The linked discussions happened months ago. In my opinion, there is a consensus in those discussions. However, when I brought it to WP:FAC, user:Arzel gave very similar remarks concerning the article. He stated that it was a "research paper" at FAC. These are very similar to his comments at WP:ORN. I am not against him stating an opinion that is against consensus. However, to me these two discussions represent consensus on the relevance of the background section to the Article and the fact that it is not WP:OR. I would like the discussions to be evaluated and closed for that reason. If I am wrong and there is no consensus, so be it. I will keep working to arrive at one. However, if there is one, I would like it acknowledged so I can point to it in future FACs.

You opened a dispute resolution request on this issue, yesterday. Is it an on-going issue? Or is it over? --RA (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There are multiple issues ongoing which I am trying resolve. I have RFCs going currently (thus the quick close of that dispute, which I didn't know) I was going to try use that process also to resolve the various dispute. However, the above issue should be at consensus, at least in my opinion.Casprings (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't really see anything to close. User:Arzel expressed an opinion, a few other disagreed. That does not make for a strong consensus in my book and User:Nathan_Johnson close was fine especially as the discussions were archived. The current version of the article does not have a tag on the background section so its not really disputed. This is beging to look like WP:STICK, but if you really want continue it follow Nathans advice and open a new RFC.--Salix (talk): 12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the two discussions and boldly closed the RFC (the repeated request here for closure of the previous discussion negated the reason for the RFC).

Like Salix alba, I think you should step away from the WP:STICK as well. --RA (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the close. I removed the section and placed it on the talk page because of the close. I will move the sources later. While I disagree with the close (multiple sources do mention it as background information on Akin), I will accept that the consensus I thought was there was not there. Thank you again.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings, see the last two sentences of my closing comment:

"I didn't see evidence in discussion that [the background section wasn't done fairly per WP:NPOV using verifiable resources dealing with the topic of the article] in this instance. Maybe the section in this instance is OR, just no evidence was given to demonstrate that it is so."

I added these in an edit to the closing comment. --RA (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the point. Backgroung is fine as long as it is neutral. Thanks and sorry for the confusion.Casprings (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1) The Tea Party movement case is suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to attempt to resolve the conflict regarding the Tea Party movement article. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. The Committee will reconvene on 1 July 2013 to determine if the conflict has been resolved; and if not, what further steps the Committee should take.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hassan Rouhani

An incident. Moved to WP:ANI#Hassan_Rouhani. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Forgotten password for an account without an e-mail address associated.

The Help:Logging in page suggests posting here for advice. Not sure what kind of information I need to provide or what the process is to reset the password for the account. Advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.223.24 (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Try this. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see the part about you having a missing e-mail. If you have forgot your password and you have not specified an e-mail, there isn't much you can do to get your account back. Unless your account posted something such as a SHA-512 which you could then verify, it's probably better if you start over with a new account. Next time, specify an e-mail so you can retain your account when mishaps like this happen. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of consensus needed

For whatever reason, an In the News item has not been assessed by any of the ITN regular admins in a couple days time. As such, I am requesting assessment here. The item, Valeant Pharmacuticals, can be found here. No special knowledge of the ITN process is required, just the ability to assess consensus. However, if desired, the general guidelines on ITN can be found at Wikipedia:In the news. Whichever way things are decided, a brief note of explanation would be nice. If needed, posting instructions are available here. Note: the story is not yet stale - at ITN we routinely post stories of this age (about 3 days old) to the middle part of the template. Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the level of support traditionally needed at ITN to be listed, but there appears to be enough support to add the item especially since this type of news rarely makes the front page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to close RfC at Talk:Air France Flight 447#RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have?

The Request for Comment (RfC) at Talk:Air France Flight 447#RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have? has been open for three weeks, and discussion appears to have calmed down. I'm asking for an uninvolved administrator to summarize the discussion and close the RfC. Perhaps it may be hard for the closing administrator to find consensus for a specific phrasing, but they can say, for example, that "the stall should be mentioned" or "pilot error should not be mentioned". Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 08:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of opening a Request for Closure at WP:ANRFC. This will transclude the request to the top of the AN page making it more visible rather than buried in the morass of AN. Blackmane (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

From WP:AN/RFC: Not done. Consensus unclear. Wait until the full month has passed. And adding here: There's really no point in requesting closure of an RfC before the full month has passed. If consensus is clear, then there's no need for formal closure. If consensus isn't clear, it shouldn't be closed early. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Injections of gender specific terms in multiple articles

I have just noticed two editors (possible related) injecting gender specifics into article against any recommendations I have read in WP. Could somebody please investigate Tradesman and Handyman and it looks as if they have created some disambiguation pages concerning the same gender nonsense theme. Editor/s involved User:108.17.82.201 and User:Omnipaedista. Many discussions on these article alk pages have resulted in not to do this complication of articles.

Apologies if this is not the correct page. I did not know where to go. Involved have not been notified. Thank you. 99.236.135.28 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No gender bias here, of course. I was merely objecting to the violation of WP:INTEGRITY [79]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies! It would appear that you have been involved in correcting the gender specific edits, as I intended to do but cannot seem to do mass reversions as an IP (I guess?) and I have made a huge mistake. It appears you have been looking after the panic I perceived from the edits done by IP108. Sorry for the confusion. My bad. 99.236.135.28 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Attribution for offensive text that was oversighted but screencapped by subject

Normally when an article is vandalized with horrible things about a BLP, it is oversighted and not mentioned again. In the case of Anita Sarkeesian, she took a screen capture of it (http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipedia/), and allowed it to be published in Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games/). Since it is technically free and since it illustrates the topic (where the vandalism of Wikipedia itself is a topic of discussion), I've included it in the article (File:Anita Sarkeesian - Wikipedia Harassment.png). The problem is, how do I give attribution to edits that are currently oversighted revision-deleted but featured in that image? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just for accuracy's sake, though it doesn't make much difference to the question at hand: the edits in question were revision deleted, not oversighted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks. I always conflate the two as they amount to the same thing for a non-admin. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ugh. It appears that a BLP includes a section on how the article was vandalized, with a screenshot showing what a terrific job the vandals did. I can see that a case could made to justify this extreme violation of WP:DENY, but I find it worrying. The fact that the subject has attracted vile abuse may have some encyclopedic value, but I don't see why Wikipedia should cooperate in that endeavor. Perhaps the section should be heavily trimmed (no illustration), with just a mention of what two reliable secondary sources have written? Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, just remember that WP:DENY is an essay: we cannot "violate" it as if it were a project policy or guideline. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say Wired violated DENY when they published the screenshot. WP vandalism made the news in a reliable secondary source, we're reporting on that reporting. If we wanted to cork this and save face we should have done so before it saw re-publication. It's silly to not use the screenshot, as it is free and clearly explains the topic. We can't reasonably say that we're protecting the BLP by editing it, when she published the screenshot herself, continues to host it on her website, and provided it to a magazine for further publication. The edits were rev-deleted, so we can't be seen to be co-operating in the slander, just acting as our own tertiary source. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to me that any of the responses above deal with the actual question. As I see it, Wired actually broke the law by publishing that image, because it contains text from Wikipedia and they did not comply with Wikipedia's licensing terms (which require a specific kind of attribution). Since the image itself is technically a copyvio, there is no way of attributing it that will make it cease to be a copyvio. However this is a very unusual situation and it seems unlikely that any sort of legal action would be taken. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the case could be made that any image of a Wikipedia page that contains the title of that page is effectively providing the attribution. For example, this is an image of a WP page that is titled Anita Sarkeesian. One could reasonably assume that Wired readers would know that the attribution would be located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian. Regardless, this is covered under fair use, as they are discussing the vandalism specifically. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Johnny. The "source" line for the image should read something like [insert Wired URL here], modified from a screenshot of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian. The little date addition to the bottom right corner isn't really enough to attract separate copyright in my opinion, and it's not particularly relevant to the situation, so it should stay but could easily be removed should someone challenge it by saying that we're infringing on her copyright. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • She can't claim a copyright violation, all WP text is share-alike, meaning that any derivative work is the same license. She pixelated the image and added the date, but her additions are automatically CC-BY-SA. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Going back to the original question, the usernames (mostly IP addresses) were not hidden in the affected range. Hiding them would be a problem per WP:Revision deletion#Notes on use. The visible usernames – even disconnected from individual edits – satisfy Terms of Use 7. b. iii., "a list of all authors". Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Awesome, thanks. It didn't even occur to me that deleting edits wouldn't delete the editors' names, or to interpret the license in that way. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to share Johnuniq's concern, above. JohnnyMrNinja replaced Sarkeesian's Kickstarter image with the vandalism screenshot, and less than a day later asked for the Kickstarter image, which had sat peacefully in Sarkeesian's biography for the best part of a year, to be deleted under CSD F5. That seems a little over-eager! I've reinserted the Kickstarter image for now; its removal had not been discussed. The screenshot of the vandalised biography is available in List of Wikipedia controversies (now linked from that section of the biography), and given what it is, I'd say that article is a better place for it than the biography of the person who was the target of the abuse. I've started a talk page section at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Kickstarter_Image_vs._vandalism_image. Andreas JN466 02:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If by peaceful you mean a no-consensus deletion discussion and if by over-eager you mean marking the unused fair-use image with an unused fair-use image tag. That non-free image is now listed at FfD as it now has free replacements. That is more of a content issue than an admin one, and none of this is related to the original question, which has been answered. Unless there is any other issue with the image's attribution, perhaps it would be more productive to move further comments to the FfD or talk page and let this section archive. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for re-visitation of the topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow

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.

---

After some discussion with TheShadowCrow on my talk page, I would like to request a partial lift on his topic ban related to creating BLP and Armenia(n) related articles. Despite an initial BATTLEGROUND start to that discussion, I believe that this user has come to a realization that no-one is "out to get them" or holding any grudges against them. I believe that at this point, something similar to the article creation restriction of User:Doncram by arbitration process, which states: "He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review." I believe that a one month or twenty-five new approved article threshold would be reasonable to demonstrate this user's intention to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner and awareness of identifying reliable sources for use on the biographies of living persons that have some verifiability. I think that this would make a reasonable prerequisite for an overall lifting of his topic ban in demonstrating good faith to properly edit existing articles on the topics. Thank you for your time and consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this the second or third request of this nature is a very short span of time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my first request on this users behalf after his second previous request on his own behalf requesting a full revocation of the ban of which he withdrew. This request, I would like to emphasize, is a request for a partial lift to facilitate reviewed new article creations offering him an opportunity To prove his claims of having learnt his lesson. Due to a technological restriction, I am unable to post links to the orginial discussion and previous requests for revocation for his ban, but would be happy to do so in the morning. Thank you again. Technical 13 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not an issue, but I notice the user has already made Armenia related edits to his sandbox: [80], [81]. This would be technically in breach of: "edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed". Now I don't think that would merit any sort of sanction, but it might be premature and indicative of continued impatience, along with the multiple appeals, and postings to user talk pages such as User talk:Dennis Brown pushing for support in his appeal: [82],[83] etc.

That said, I'd actually support a relaxation of the topic ban to allow him to work, initially, on a single article at a time in his sandbox - which would need to be reviewed by an editor with good BLP experience before being moved to mainspace. He'd need to find someone willing to do those reviews. If that works out, then the restrictions could be gradually relaxed. If it doesn't, then the original terms are easily reinstated. I don't like the AFC idea at all - AFC reviewers shouldn't be expected to do what could essentially amount to mentoring a topic-banned editor. Begoon ^talk 07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good proposal. Support. NE Ent

That seems to be a reasonable counter-proposal. As a reviewer at AfC, I would be happy to ask around and see if there is anyone that has good BLP experience and see if they would be willing to take this user under their wing and mentor them. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've made requests at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-user#Requesting an adopter that is... and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Requesting a reviewer that is... as promised. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly that reduces my support somewhat, because one of the big concerns here is the "pushy" nature of the appeals to date. Did you not notice the multiple uses of the word "premature" in this section? That should have been a hint. Editors worried that this was being pushed too hard and too fast will hardly be reassured to see you attempting to make arrangements for something that only one editor supports, and 2 admins have opposed, in an unfinished discussion. I know you're trying to help, but that doesn't, imo. Begoon ^talk 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how requesting a relaxation on a three month topic ban that was imposed seven weeks ago (one week shy of two months) which is over 50% of his sentence being carried out with a mentoring that would be set to last no less than a month (putting him one week shy of the original three months) is premature. Can someone explain that to me, please, as I really do not understand it. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try. I tried to explain my comment when I made it. I came back and tried to clarify it a couple of times. It's a perception thing. My little girl knows that quite often the best way to get something from me when she's been forbidden it or abused it is to stop asking for it back every 5 minutes. She knows that constantly asking the same question in different ways is not going to work out for her. So she behaves for a while, smiles sweetly, and gets what she wants more quickly. Sometimes she forgets, and keeps holding onto the stick. That doesn't work out for her, ever. Not a perfect analogy, and sorry if it doesn't help. Begoon ^talk 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Are you kidding me? This was withdrawn as way too premature, not because you offered to have a chat. There cannot be relaxation of the TB this soon, seeing as he wholly misunderstood what the topic ban actually meant. Bringing this up now risks a topic ban against requesting relaxation of their topic ban - bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my thinking at the last discussion from a few days ago - too soon. Wait for the full 3 months and then we will re-visit. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's hard to see how editing in a sandbox would be disruptive. I can see the reasoning behind wanting a three month break but the editor may lose interest altogether than then we've lost an editor (we have a shortage of those). NE Ent 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I've seen a lot of editors being pushed away unreasonably recently, and based on my readings of previous incidents that seems to be the way it has always been. This is sad that there are people that want to help and improve Wikipedia as a whole, but may be a little misguided in doing so and for that receive excessive blocks or bans from Wikipedia. Now, I realize that there are a lot of stupid bots and people that intend to do harm, but honestly, I rarely see any of those formally attempting to follow protocol and come to ANI or any other venue to request reconsideration. Most of the bots and those wishing to do harm to the project don't bother, they simply create a new spa or make their atrocious edits anonymously. Now, Wikipedia has many venues to help new editors, Help desk, Teahouse/Questions, Adopt a user program, AFC, and the list goes on, but there seems to be a broken link in getting the people that are having troubles and are here in ANI to these programs and help areas. Instead, there seems to be a let's block them for half a year and maybe they will be more mature and absorb all of our guidelines in the meantime even though they don't have the opportunity to practice any of the things they are suppose to be learning. I see lots of flaws in this, and hope that there can be a way to discuss this out and come up with a better "rehabilitation" program of sorts to get people hooked up with the right resources to help them make better edits on Wikipedia. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

People are rehabilitated here all the time. Many admins started out by getting in trouble and then learning to fit in. It's a community, it's established, and at the end of the day it's a lot harder to change the monolith than change yourself. You need to be a part of it to effect change from within, and change from outside isn't going to happen, generally. I've been "mentoring" an editor who was indefinitely blocked, and saw no prospect at the time of his ban of ever getting out of the hole he was in. It's taken not weeks, or months, but much longer, and it's ongoing because it still benefits him, and me. Now he's a valuable member of the community, productive, and a lot of other editors respect him. I hardly need to do any "mentoring" with him at all now, but I'm still around for him if he wants to talk. Sometimes he "mentors" me now, on topics he knows better than I do. And I'm nothing - have a look at the mentoring work editors like User:Worm That Turned have done. Simply awesome. Sure, we could do the "mentoring" thing better as a community - but please don't think it doesn't already happen. A lot. Officially and unofficially. It's just not a "10 steps to heaven", tick all the boxes, model citizen in a fortnight program. But if you come up with one, I'm all ears. Begoon ^talk 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I failed to make myself clear in the fact that I understand and respect that there are a few people that are rehabilitated with the way things currently work. My point was that if a person takes the time to discuss what they did, or what it was perceived that they did (I'll admit that I don't agree that there were initial violations in all of the cases I've seen on these noticeboards, but that may be my lack of understanding of all of the circumstances or whatnot and I've not the time or interest in dredging up all kinds of old "cases"), and someone feels it worthy to request a modification of the sanctions that are proposed on a user based on the discussion and all previous discussions that indicate others feel that the user is remorseful and truly has good faith intentions, than it isn't unreasonable to allow some modification of the sanctions from "you can't do" to "you can do, but supervised" and I think it benefits Wikipedia more in the long run to encourage participation in any of the programs I listed or implied that are designed to improve the editing skills of the editor and offer some kind of reward (in these cases, lightening, not removal, of the sanctions against them). Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And as you saw from my support above, and Ent's, you're not alone in believing that we should work in that way. We also need to show respect for the community's time in dealing with these matters though, and, like it or lump it, serial appeals and constant pushiness rubs people up the wrong way. Always. I've used up my self imposed monthly ANI word count just in this discussion, though - so good luck. Begoon ^talk 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As promised last night, the links to the previous discussions are: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Please remove my ban. → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive249#Ban_appeal

• To be fair, his dabbling in his sandbox was my idea. That shouldn't be held against him. I felt it was a way to allow him to demonstrate the ability to do so properly, while limiting the reach. During his long block some time ago, I showed him how to hat discussions to allow him to work on article drafts on his talk page, so I've been involved for some time and used my best judgement in determining what would not cause disruption, balanced with trying to help him get up to the standards expected by the community. If the community wants to hold me to account, that is fine, but it would be unfair to hold that against him when deciding. On the topic ban as a whole, I'm reserving judgement at this time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that, so wouldn't have even mentioned it had I known. Mea culpa too. I'm pleased I actually supported a very gradual relaxation for one article at a time in his sandbox in that case... What made me nervous about anything more liberal was the overall appearance of impatience to just get the whole TB scrapped, with posts like [84], while this discussion was happening. Of course, that could also just indicate enthusiasm, but there do seem to have been an awful lot of words wasted on this matter, and that comes into play too. Begoon ^talk 05:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose due to this editor not understanding the reason for the topic ban in the first place. Like the previous two requests, this request is just too soon. BearMan998 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • BearMan, I need to ask you, do you feel that your opinion here is completely neutral? I mean just a couple months ago when the topic ban was decided upon your seemed to be flaming this user pretty hard saying that he was personally attacking you. If you have gotten over that and this truly is neutral (which AGF says I must assume that is the case), then I apologize; however, if that is not the case, I would have the utmost respect if you were to withdraw your opposition. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me as to where I was flaming this user pretty hard saying that he was personally attacking me? If this did occur, I honestly don't remember it. That said, if TSC doesn't understand the reason for the topic ban I can't understand why it should be lifted early. There are situations where a user shows remorse, takes complete ownership of his/her actions that led to a ban, and takes time to review and learn policy so that further violations don't occur. In those situations, bans can be relaxed, but I'm just not seeing it here. BearMan998 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your tone was quite condescending in my opinion, not to mention it shows an obvious assumption of bad faith on your part. Based on your experiences with this user, I'm not sure that I could blame you entirely for assuming bad faith, but I would be cautious as to how much I had to say in discussions relating to a user I could not assume good faith in. I've seen remorse in both of his personal attempts to request the ban be completely lifted as well as remorse and good faith in his discussions with me once we got past him expecting me to scold him on my talk page. I can't see how it would do any harm for him to create a couple new articles to be reviewed before going live to make sure he gets it and can properly source BLPs. In the time since this discussion has started, I've spent some time learning about BLPs myself and would be willing to mentor and adopt this user if it would easy concerns about possible damage or disruption to the project as a whole. Would this be acceptable for him to write drafts in his userspace that myself (or even Dennis or NE ent or any of the previous supporters of a complete lift on his ban) would review before going into article? As was seen in the discussion with Jax 0677 elsewhere on this page (may have been archived by now), if it turns out that I am wrong, and TheShadowCrow really is NOTHERE, I would be the first to bring it back to ANI and recommend a full reinstatement of the topic ban to last no less than six months. I feel pretty confident that this won't be necessary though. Technical 13 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My support above would be contingent on a "mentor" with good BLP experience over a long period, and demonstrated good judgement in advising in areas like "dropping the stick" and respecting consensus. I think you had recent, similar issues, albeit early in your relatively short "career" so you can probably understand the problems it causes. Do you think that is what would make you suitable for the task? Possibly it does, but I'm interested in your thinking. Begoon ^talk 12:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can not offer a "lot" of experience with BLPs, but I am familiar with them and the need to cite reliable sources. The best I can offer as far as my ability to demonstrate good judgment in advising is my Teahouse answer record and my contributions to WP:VPT the notifications discussions and my interactions on this page itself. I understand your concern about the apparent brevity of my editing record here on Wikipedia itself, although the fairly short duration of that incident itself may offer some insight on my ability to work together with the community and I've intentionally left that incident on my talk page as a way to aid in reducing the hostility of other users that may be having issues by being able to point to it and say hey, I understand what you are saying as I was there not long ago myself. Then I point them to take a peek at User:Technical 13/Feedback and tell them that despite being blocked myself a couple months ago, I've managed to adjust my editing habits appropriately and become much more respected in the community. Like I've said a few times in various discussions on this forum, people learn by doing. That being said, my attempt to help user:Jax_0677 is an example of me being able to drop any sticks and know when an editor I'm trying to help has figured out that the horse is dead and ready to be helped. Like I said above, if it turns out that I am wrong, and TheShadowCrow really is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, I would be the first to bring it back to ANI and recommend a full reinstatement of the topic ban to last no less than six months, I still feel confident that this won't be necessary though. Technical 13 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 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.

Possible administrative power abuse by Admin:Beeblebrox

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.

---

Exactly five minutes after the most recent post on the topic with no requests for close this administrator closed this discussion because the editor in question hasn't commented on the topic. I think this closing is a little premature since we were still discussing it and as far as TheShadowCrow not commenting, this was per my instruction in the discussion on my talk page and shouldn't be held against him. I've opened this a new section below to discuss Beeblebrox's possible abuse of power to close an active discussion based on an unfounded accusation. I think the last two comments between Begoon and I were constructive to the matter and not disruptive. I really hate to assume bad faith on Beeblebrox's part especially since most of my previous interactions with him were fair (even if not always in my favor or I agreed with his POV). So, I'm going to assume it was the MediaWiki software that failed to give him an (edit conflict) warning and he was unaware that I had just responded to Begoon while he was closing the discussion. I request permission to continue the possibility of me mentoring this user and allowing them to create a couple new articles on the topic of their ban in their user space as Admin:Dennis Brown was already apparently allowing them to do without anyone else's knowledge. Technical 13 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin can close discussions, too, so it really isn't even a consideration for admin abuse. He did make an important note that TheShadowCrow has failed to add even a single comment, which may be why so few have bothered to respond here. It has been entertained for days now, and often 3rd party requests are rejected out of hand. Most processes like this are wrapped up in a day or two, but this has dragged on much longer without much support. Viewed objectively, the whole process has been handled rather leniently. It is fine if you disagree with the close, but it is clearly not abuse. As for the sandbox, as no one has objected to my "exception" which I clearly declared (and it was on my talk page, so it wasn't in secret) so I assume there is no objection for continuing. Mentoring doesn't require permission, and I would encourage that. If I were to take anything from this discussion, it would be "wait at least 90 days". I thought it was too early as well, but refrained from voicing that concern as to give him every chance to persuade the community, yet he never showed up. In this case, I concur with the close, with no prejudice against TheShadowCrow himself requesting for a lifting of the topic ban in the future, preferably in 90 days or so. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Technical 13, this looks very WP:POINTy on your behalf. Beeblebrox's actions were 100% right, as Dennis stated; it's time to drop the stick and move on. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you need to read the whole discussion again T13. Beeblebrox's close is good and fair. And really? Abuse? Think about it for a while, and realise that you're letting your disappointment at not being able to steer this the way you wanted colour your judgement. Also think about how much good this does for the user in question. Much less than none, I'd suggest. Begoon ^talk 16:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Again, as I stated in my opening statement for this discussion, please do not hold the fact that I asked him to not participate in this conversation against him.
• @Dennis Brown:, what it looks like you said is that the "exception" to allow him to work in his sandbox is okay. If that is the case, then my request is approved because that was all I was asking for at this time. Perhaps my request wasn't as clear as I had thought it was.
• @Lukeno94:, having a point is NOTPOINTy by default. I'm not disrupting anything on Wikipedia to make my point. I simply pointed out that closing a discussion with a comment that was barely five minutes old that offered details in response to a question I was asked and asked if my details were unreasonable was premature especially since he apparently did not take the time to follow the initial link to the discussion I had with TheShadowCrow or he would have found my plea for the user to not say anything in the conversation unless I asked him to and closing it because there was no feedback from the user.
• @Begoon: My major concern here is the fact that five minutes after I replied to your question, the discussion was closed without any confirmation that you had gotten to read my response or offering you the opportunity to respond. Technical 13 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Despite Technical13 failing to notify me as required, our fancy new notification system let me know about this thread. So, I've seen it, I've read his concerns, and I have absolutely nothing to add as this complaint is without merit. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion of Admin abuse is wholly without any merit - does T13 not recognize the damage that he's doing to TSC with crap like this? The section above needed to close, die a horrible death, and be archived ASAP ... days ago even. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:29, 3 June 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.

Azerbaijani people

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, britannica Encyclopedia Say: [85]/ Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. BUT Verdia25 Say Turkic-speaking people. and Not accept Azerbaijani people is Turkic people--'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss that at Talk:Azerbaijani people where Verdia25 has now opened a thread. Unless there is disruptive editing or edit warring going on, it's nothing that needs the attention of our administrators. We don't control the content of our articles. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 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.

Entries in Category:Possible AfC copy-and-paste moves

• This category is for suspected cut-and-paste moves. But the majority of the entries that I have seen in this category so far, are requests to history-merge page X to page Y, where page X has only one edit and that edit is a redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move on

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.

---

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pjc747 a different kind of case came up. Editor was blocked for VOA a while back, which he claims was a compromised account. Edits before that were fine. Original account was User:Pjc747 and it was blocked 3 December 2010. He started a new account User:Spartan7W the next month in January 2011 and spot checking his edits, I didn't see anything problematic. The only reason he was discovered is he used the old name in his current signature, so he wasn't trying to hide anything, he just wasn't aware of the policy, which is plausible. Technically, it is socking now, meaning he should log in to the old account, request unblock, or wait 6 months for a WP:STANDARDOFFER but he would rather use this established account. Forcing standard process seems overly bureaucratic in this one particular case. A unilateral decision by me seems inappropriate in this circumstance so I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. This is one of those rare cases where I think Wikipedia is better served if we ignore the rules as a community.

I propose we move on, let him edit unrestricted, and build an encyclopedia.

• Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - "Rules" or bureaucracy should never be allowed to prevent improvements to the project. He's currently editing constructively, and should be allowed to continue doing so. I am much more convinced of an editor's "rehabilitation" by months of constructive editing than I am by six months of nothing followed by a standard offer. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Of course NE Ent 02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. Begoon ^talk 03:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Accounts sometimes are genuinely compromised, and starting a clean account seems a reasonable solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good idea, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Salvidrim. Peridon (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Dennis Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sensible applicationg of IAR. Blackmane (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I can't say that I'm overly convinced by the account offered at the SPI (this situation seems more like the actions of a youngish editor who got caught vandalising and then made a clean start, but I am pretty cynical), but Pjc747's edits seem of a good quality so there's no reason for such an old block to be enforced. Most VOA blocks are (I suspect) imposed on young people, and so it would be pretty silly to put any weight on them after more than a few months in most circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  I completely understand the skepticism, and share the belief that it is moot anyway. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Nick-D --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a reasonable idea, community support, etc. for doing this. I believe there's consensus. However, I have notified blocking admin Dreadstar on his talk page of the situation and discussion and invited him to comment prior to acting. If he objects prior to tomorrow morning I will hold off until discussion converges again. If he does not I intend to unblock and resolve this discussion tomorrow morning ish. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Had the block been more recent or more contentious (or memorable) than a routine VOA, I would have notified at the start. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor would prefer to use the new account, so I don't think the unblock is required, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There'd better be a permanent linkage between the accounts, if that's the case (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and changed the block on the master, noting the linkage, and added a note on that editors talk page, too. Dreadstar isn't around but I'm confident he would have no objection if he were here, so I've just implemented what is an obvious conclusion, including closing the SPI report and notifying User:Spartan7W. Thanks to everyone for having an open mind, I expected as much but it is always good to see it from the community. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry I ended up away for an extra day there. Thumbs up. 128.107.239.233 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• A little late, but I support this. Good job Dennis!  :) Dreadstar ☥ 03:48, 4 June 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.

Issues with relisting (and, occasionally, closing) AfDs

This is to other admins who use the closeafd.js script to help them close and relist AfDs. I've noticed recently that apparently, when relisting a discussion, the 'View log' link on the AfD does not update to link to the log the discussion is relisted to anymore - it remains pointing to the original log that the discussion is no longer in, even after multiple relistings. In addition, on occasion (although not regularly) it fails to remove the AfD template from the article when closing, so please check the article after closing to be sure it did (Anomie's linkclassifier helps with this). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The script still seems to be working fine.[86][87][88] (Note: I am using User:Timotheus Canens/closeAFD.js, which is Mr.Z-man's script with a few tweaks.) The issue you describe usually happens when you try and relist a whole load of AfD discussions in a short time period. The script doesn't have any edit conflict detection, and if it encounters an edit conflict it just doesn't make the edit to the log. This is a pretty common occurrence, as the daily log pages are huge and take a long time to save. The answer is either for admins to wait until one discussion has finished relisting before starting the script on the next one, or for someone to write a batch relist tool that can do a whole load of relists at once. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in responding, life got hectic. Well, I understand that, but that's not quite the issue I'm referring to. I've experienced the "not removing/adding to the log" thing just like that, and resolved it the same way, but what I'm referring to is the 'View Log' link on the individual AfD discussion page. See for instance this AfD; originally listed May 17, it's been relisted on May 24 and June 1, but 'View Log' still points to May 17th's log. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have just observed this too, and I was not relisting a batch, only a single AfD. I had to update the "Log" link by hand. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Page move assistance

I need help moving Andy Gray (footballer born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer born 1964), Andy Gray (footballer born 1973) and Andy Gray (footballer born 1977) to Andy Gray (footballer, born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer, born 1964), Andy Gray (footballer, born 1973) and Andy Gray (footballer, born 1977) and fix Andrew Gray accordingly per Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Birth_date_format_conformity_.28second_round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Bad move, it should never have been requested and should never have been granted. The new naming guidelines are controversial - as Tony full well knows - and there have been issues raised with the RFC process on the talk page. GiantSnowman 08:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Redirect

Hello, Is it possible to make the following wikipedia page redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Soltz to http://www.bloomu.edu/president . Bloomsburg is an accredited university and it's more relevant to link to the external presidents about page as it's more up to date + relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow82x (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia pages can't redirect to external sources. If Mr Soltz is indeed notable and passes our notability policies for his own Wikipedia page then that link could be included in the article, however. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Black Kite mentions two different reasons, not one, that we can't do this. Our participants generally agree on the qualifications for getting an article. At the same time, even if 100% of participants agreed with your proposal, it wouldn't happen because the software will throw a fit and be unable to understand it. We could create a page whose contents were just the link (but again, please don't do this, because we've decided that such pages can be removed quickly and without discussion), but it's not possible to set up URL redirection from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Soltz to http://www.bloomu.edu/president. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP might have been asking to replace the former red link to Soltz in the Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania infobox with an external link to his bio. That's not a great solution either per MOS, but it is done sometimes. In any case, I've created a viable stub for David L. Soltz. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow request and Beeblebrox premature closure 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.

---

Begoon, there was no need for vulgarity despite the fact that it was reverted for being against the rules of posting to a closed discussion. Anyways... All I wanted to say here is thank you to everyone that participated in the discussion. I found your input in someways enlightening. I'll be honest, I don't get sarcasm very well, and I don't understand asking the asking of questions that you don't want an answer to. I'm pretty sure there was a pillar I read somewhere that said it is always best to try and be as clear and concise as possible while remaining civil. I've made a note and apology on Beeblbrox's user page, as I really was not trying to attack him and I actually had an edit page open to send him the AN-notice template but everything happened so fast and I'm dealing with a baby trying to pull her playcenter over on herself (she's in her high chair eating lunch right now) that I didn't get a chance to submit and turned it into an apology instead. Anyways, thank you all again. TheShadowCrow and I will be back at some point to request a full ban lift, and it will be within a reasonable amount of time. I will likely be back in here much sooner with my (Non-administrator comment) and (Comment from uninvolved editor) on other matters, and I hope that you will AGF and at least consider my future comments with neutrality. Happy editing all! Technical 13 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think your well-intentioned, but poorly-executed thread above shows that you do not yet understand enough about Wikipedia's core policies and processes to make too many nao's and cue's for awhile yet. You're best to watch and learn for awhile before opening threads or commenting. This very thread alone shows you don't get it yet! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:22, 3 June 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.

More admin help needed at ITN

A few days after I posted a request for admin assessment at ITN, there is another item with what appears to have fairly obvious consensus to post (but take that assessment with a grain of salt since I nominated the item) left languishing for >24 hours. It seems to be happening a lot lately with even the most obvious items sticking around 12+ hours, so I am thinking we need more admin help at ITN in general. There are several admins who often participate in discussions (which naturally makes us ineligible to post a given item). A couple admins who rarely discuss but often post haven't been around much recently, so more people willing to pop in once in a while and assess items would be helpful.

The particular item in question is "FC Bayern Munich treble" found here. No special knowledge of the ITN process is required, just the ability to assess consensus. However, if desired, the general guidelines on ITN can be found at Wikipedia:In the news. In response to a question asked last time, ITN has a "normalish" standard of consensus - by the numbers, items are usually (unless support arguments are weak) posted when above the 60-65% level, and are occasionally posted even below 50% if support arguments are stronger than opposition. When potentially posting an item (i.e. when consensus is there), you also need to make sure the article is of adequate quality (no orange tag) and updated (usually at least a couple sentences on the news item). We don't usually close items before they go stale (are older than the oldest item on the template) unless they are hopeless and/or the discussion gets unnecessarily contentious.

Posting instructions are available here. Note: we routinely post stories that are 2-3 days old if immediately consensus wasn't clear. Stories are sorted on the template by date, so a new item can be added to the middle, for example. If you are interested and have any questions on ITN, let me know (reply here or my talk). There may be an award to any "new" ITN admin who assesses/posts a couple items within the next week. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've posted the Bayern blurb. I'll keep an eye on this this week (you'll have to keep an eye on me to make sure I don't break anything). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Free Given Rollback??

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 User:WorldTraveller101, a new user on Wikipedia has received rollback privileges after being declined several times as seen here: [89]. Though declined he managed to get rollback privileges later without requesting. Even if this is Okay or not, he has been blocked 4 times for; Sockpuppetry, Hounding, Baiting, and Good Hand-Bad hand sockpuppetry. He has also made many mistakes using twinkle often reverting the good edits made by innocent I.P's. Most of his 2000 edits are on talk pages and user pages. --PrabashWhat? 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to this, he cannot identify vandalism correctly. 3 Examples here: [90] [91] [92] of me informing of this, also many others users have told him about the exact same issue, some but not all include [93] [94]. It goes without saying to an admin the ability to identify vandalism is crucial when using rollback. A quick look through his talk page shows he isn't ready for a tool like this. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I do not see where WorldTraveller101 was notified of this discussion, a required element of opening a thread! User:PBASH607, please correct this right away.--My76Strat (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

He was informed right away, here --JetBlast (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Note: I notified the granting administrator, User:Graeme Bartlett, of this thread. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, I should have looked more closely than I did! I didn't notice that WorldTraveller101 was using an overflow parameter on the table of contents and failed to scroll its entirety. As they often say, "haste makes waste" and it certainly did in this example. Best regards.--My76Strat (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have time this very minute to read all this but wanted to make all aware of User:WorldTraveller101/CVUA and make sure that Nerdfighter was notified of this thread as well... Technical 13 (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Listen guys, I know you guys are unhappy about this, but it is what it is. It is why I'm doing CVUA and adoption. Anyway, I only plan to use it for editors who have made multiple edits of clear-cut vandalism. I know JetBlast, especially has concerns about it, but I promise that I'll be using it wisely, and that Vigyani, AutomaticStrikeout, Nerdfighter, and others will be. Thanks guys. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I requested reviewer, but the admin looking at it thought that rollback would be appropriate. Also, I'm not going to use it a ton (except for as stated above), until I've passed CVUA and perhaps, adoption. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Admin really should have checked the history of the user before, and the comments by WT101 are quite concerning. --Rschen7754 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Why did (apparently) nobody attempt to first discuss this with the admin that granted rollback? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

AutomaticStrikeout I didn't discuss the issue with the admin, but I did ask if I were eligible for rollback, she told me I have room for improvements, but shockingly WT101 gets rollback for free from that admin? was this even justified? Thanks --PrabashWhat? 23:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys, just do what's necessary, if consensus is for no rollback, then give me a few more weeks, 300-500 good edits and then try again? Whatever consensus is is fine by me. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly did you mean by "I know you guys are unhappy about this, but it is what it is"? Prodego ^talk 23:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Um...what else would I mean? I e-mailed Vigyani and was hoping to address any possible concerns. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Usually "it is how it is" means that something is bad, but it cannot be changed. I do not understand how that fits in with what you were saying. Prodego ^talk 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at his declined requests (some of which I declined) he was practically begging to have the right. Not exactly inspiring and borderline hatcollectorish. --Rschen7754 23:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, that is why I tried to show how I wanted to help. Maybe I'm not ready yet, but maybe just having it now and not using it much until the end of my CVUA and/or adoption sounds reasonable, right? I'm not compromising, I'm just curious. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's textbook hat collecting. Wikimedia sites don't give out rights until you show that you need them and know how to use them. --Rschen7754 23:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Rollback is pretty useless, so why all this fuss? If it wasn't useless the admins would have kept it to themselves. Eric Corbett 23:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is true. Prodego ^talk 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As much as reverting multiple edits is useful, it is pretty true. I'm going to talk to him. There is clear consensus that another 3-5 weeks of no warnings and 250-500 good edits until then. Let me open up a thread at his talk if no one else already has. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

He has already been invited to the discussion here so keep the discussion here please. --PrabashWhat? 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed rollback rights from WT101. I'm not exactly thrilled with the way WT101, PBASH, or JetBlast have conducted themselves here. It seems to be a hat collecting competition between them. In particular the 'It is how it is' comment is not helpful. It is this response to the concerns raised here, not the concerns themselves, that I removed rollback. Prodego ^talk 23:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WT101, 3 months and 1200+ good edits with zero warnings, there might be a chance that you actually earn the tool. Until then, keep your nose clean (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Having just declined a previous application a few days previously, I was surprised about the according of the right. However, I generally assume GF on the part of admins and hence did not raise an issue over it. That said, this thread is a storm in a teacup and a lot of unnecessary intereference by inexperienced editors whose business it it not. I've mildly warned some of them for PA and refactoring other users' comments. There is far too much silly witch hunting going on against admins - even Eric Corbett is not worried in this instance. Absolutely no admin action needed here and this can be closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Can I just do an NAC for this one, since no admin action is needed? WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No. You've been asked many times to keep away from admin/meta areas until you have demonstrated that you can edit with appropriate maturity and completed your adoption course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WT, you may. This is a discussion board for everyone Kudpung, so WT is welcome to contribute here. It may not be the best area for new editors to contribute, but if he wants to, he may. All editors are welcome to contribute almost everywhere. Prodego ^talk 00:30, 5 June 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's with Category:container categories??

this category, Category:15th-century_Ottoman_people, is NOT a container category!!!!!

who decided to add hundreds of categories to Category:container categories which are NOT container categories???!!

Container categories are only supposed to contain other categories, not pages!!!!

who decided to add all of these??? not only does it make "container categories too unwieldy to use, it is not accurate!!!

just wanted to let you know. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• The {{container category}} template was added in THIS DIFF by Takabeg at 06:43 on August 30, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technical 13 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Question: well, ok. i am going to try to rectify this somewhat. let me know any thoughts. do you agree it is okay to remove {{container category}} from categories such as this one? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was not part of the creation of that template and do not entirely care of it's purpose. I do believe that this excludes me from making any decisions or offering any advice as to what you should or shouldn't do on this regard except to say that you should probably be BOLD and if you get REVERTED, I would suggest pointing to this discussion on the talk page for the category and DISCUSS it with whomever reverted your edit. It should be evident pretty quickly if you are going to find some middle ground or not and I would probably request a 3O sooner than later in this case. Anyways... Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, as an after thought, I should probably note here that I'm not an administrator, in case you are not aware. Technical 13 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's okay User:Technical 13, not to worry. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

History of Gibraltar has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article on 13 July to mark the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Utrecht. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 10:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple IP addresses

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.

---

Relevent discussions before I get into details:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Community ban of Wickwack AKA Ratbone
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/121.215.10.7

At the reference desks, there has been what appears to be recently uncovered someone who is, for all intents and purposes, violating the spirit of WP:SOCK by using multiple personal identifiers including the following:

• Wickwack
• Ratbone
• Keit
• Floda

None of these is a registered account, but they all edit from the same Australian service provider (Telstra) with a highly dynamic IP address, and they always sign their posts using one of those monikers, though they have never formally registered an account, they have clearly represented themselves as four distinct personalities. There is some compelling evidence, however, based on the style and overlap of editing, the fact that they all edit from the same geographic area, all sign their posts in the same manner (though they use different names, the way they sign their name to their IP posts is the same), and that they frequently show up to support the others when a conflict arises is quite disturbing. There are even instances where more than one of the "personalities" will edit in quick succession from the exact same IP address. Not everyone in the above discussions is fully convinced of the connection, but a decent case based on diffs and other evidence has been built by User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Modocc. I'd rather not copy the entirety of their evidence here, as that would take this post into WP:TLDR territory (If I'm not there already), but I'd like to ask that as many people as possible review that evidence, and then vote on the following ban proposal. If you either a) disagree that the evidence is compelling enough or b) agree that the evidence is clear, but still do not support the ban proposed below, please feel free to oppose it. If, however, you think this type of WP:GAME behavior is disruptive and dishonest and should be stopped, please consider supporting it. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I know I am supposed to notify the user in question, but they edit from a very dynamic range of IP addresses, changing randomly. I have no idea what the most recent IP address they have used is, but they do actively monitor WT:RD and other parts of the reference desk, so I have left a notice there hoping they will see it. Any other suggestions as to how to meet the notification requirements are much obliged, I have every desire to hear this person's side of the story, but I am at a loss as to how to more efficiently notify them than I have already done, so any help in this department would be appreciated. --Jayron32 04:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I put a notice here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:124.178.49.220 --Modocc (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban of IP editor known as Wickwack and other aliases

The user known by the aliases Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, Floda, who edits from a dynamic IP address, is indefinitely banned from contributing to discussions at Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and all subpages thereof. They are banned regardless of whichever alias they use, or even if they stop using aliases altogether, whether it be one of the above, or another, enforceable by reverting their contributions to the above discussion pages.

• Support as nom. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support due to manipulative use of "alias". -- Scray (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Having been gamed, I'm inclined to delve into the archives to see what other misconduct might have occurred that might warrant a full site ban. -Modocc (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Unless the editor is willing to register an account and provide some rationale/alternative for their behaviour.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm generally a supporter of a lot of things WickWack says, but Jayron has convinced me that his pretty obvious messing around with aliases is a big breach of at least the spirit of what we're on about here. He says some very constructive stuff on the Ref Desks, and he has a ready solution if he wants to stay with us. Register. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support But without enforcement until after he has posted on WT:RD or W:RD, and had a chance to have his say (if he doesn't, then the lack of a ban makes no difference, but he should have the chance to comment to stop it coming into effect, rather than to remove it). MChesterMC (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

But do you see the problem? He is not registered. His IP address changes frequently. (Not his fault. It's how his ISP operates.) So how can we communicate with him? (Personally, I think we should force editors in such situations to register, precisely to avoid the problem we have here.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is that there should not be a presumption of guilt until it can be reasonably assumed that he has at least seen the argument. When he posts on WT:RD (or on W:RD, which will probably cause someone to point him here), we can safely presume he has seen it. If he doesn't post on either, then the topic ban makes no difference anyway. In practice, it makes little difference, I'm just more comfortable with him defending the ban before it comes in than trying to revoke it once it is in force. MChesterMC (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support but conditional on not registering; i.e. he (?) should be allowed to register an account and no longer be bothered by this, but looking at the evidence allowing the continuation of the ip socking outweighs the benefits of their frequently useful answer on the RD.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question/(Non-administrator comment) I'm curious, if this editor is unregistered and has a dynamic enough IP address that it is causing an issue confirming that they have received notification that there is an issue with their style of contributing, how is a topic ban going to help in protecting the community? Short of blocking the wide range of IPs the editor edits from, what is going to stop them? I see such a wide IP range-block as doing more harm than good keeping out multiple other good editors that follow all the rules in an attempt to stop one stick in the mud. Forcing everyone to register goes against what the spirit of Wikipedia is, and I would never support it (as I'm sure most others wouldn't as well). I am simply at a loss for words and ideas that might actually prove useful to prevent this kind of damage. Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume this is why the ban is "enforceable by reverting their contributions". Mind you, if he stops signing his name(s), we open up a whole different can of worms when we try and decide if a post is Wickwacky enough to revert (or should that just be whacky?) MChesterMC (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack signs his posts because he wants people to know that he posted them - despite an every-changing IP. Forcing him to be truly anonymous and to gain no credit for his work would be a genuine punishment that would hurt him. He could pick another name to attach to his IP posts - but as soon as we realize that this is another sock - he'd have to change it and start over with building a good reputation. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Last Chance I'd prefer they be given a final chance to pick one identity and register it. If they refuse am not against a ban. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I could accept that. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The IP-hopping creates additional difficulty for us in monitoring his activities. He is not compelled to IP-hop, and there is no reason for us to view that as extenuating. If he creates an account and stops pretending to be multiple people then he can ask to have this ban reviewed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't read the thread properly, have you? It's his ISP, the biggest in Australia, that does the changing of the IP addresses. It's not the editor's choice. While I too support sanctions, I get cross with posts that are poorly informed, apparently by choice. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It's going to be tough to impose a punishment that will stick - but doing nothing at all just gives permission to any malcontent with a rapidly cycling DHCP address to run riot through our encyclopedia. If Wickwack (et al) is handed a block - then we can at least delete contributions that are identified by that set of monikers on sight. Since these activities seem most common on the Ref Desks - where a small community of editors is easily able to monitor all posts - that's not an unreasonable consequence. I get a sense that Wickwack takes pleasure from being credited with his posts - which is why he signs them - and I doubt that he'll become a totally anonymous IP poster...so a seemingly symbolic punishment might have more teeth than one might at first suspect. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Last chance per Medeis, ie unless he commits to an identity and stops socking. His contributions were often good; his chosen format was a pain but within the rules. I fully support the principle of IP editing, but a topic ban doesn't force him to register to edit any area where he has no problematic history. If he's genuine, he'll appreciate why this is required in view of the diffs. If it turns into Whack-a-Wickwack, at least we'll know where we stand. I really hope he registers. - Karenjc 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Last chance as per Medeis. Like everyone else, I am tired of this editor's antics . Gandalf61 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Partial oppose. I haven't heard compelling evidence, and I know sometimes Wickwack gives good answers. The proposed remedy is that we delete his stuff on sight, but since we might not know for sure who it is that could mean discarding good content by a new volunteer. I would suggest we simply give ourselves broad latitude to remove comments by him we think are abusive, but also the freedom to leave anything that seems helpful. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Last chance as per Medeis. Medeis is showing human feelings for the first time, so, we could do that too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the smoking gun I am copying it from the Ref Desk Talk Page linked to above and archiving it since it's a quote and to make it stand out. Another bold inset format would be fine if someone wants to edit it.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

TenOfAllTrades' smoking gun evidnece of gaming the system copied from the Ref Desk Talk Page}}

---

By themselves, those instances might be explained away as (admittedly rather implausible) coincidence. Damning, however, is that while editing from the IP address 121.215.10.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Wickwack/Ratbone appears to have inadvertently slipped up, first editing this talk page and signing as Ratbone, then about half a day later, posting a rather mean-spirited comment on WP:RD/Sci while signing as Wickwack. Either he forgot to reset his router between posts, or Telstra left his IP static for a lot longer than usual.

If Wickwack/Ratbone just liked to use different names from time to time, it might be no more than a mildly-irritating eccentricity. Pretending to be two or more separate individuals to try to win arguments on the Ref Desk, or to try to protect himself from sanctions on this talk page rises to the level of misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And here are a few more. A very quick search through the archives finds

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 April 25#Why can't LCDs be made capable of displaying interlaced video?, where 'Keit' disagrees with SteveBaker; they go back and forth for a bit, and in a thread with no other participants to that point, 'Ratbone' suddenly shows up to announce "I agree with Keit..... One suspects that if Steve was actually a researcher in Philips Display and Television Group, then from the misinformed nonsense he wrote, he was probably in cabinet design or something."
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 March 5#Does drinking water right after a meal makes us fatter? is interesting, as it introduces another pseudonym: Floda. 'Wickwack' offers a response, Alterprise demurs, and then 'Floda' (another Telstra IP) pops in with "It would appear that Wickwack is correct..." before Wickwack returns to further agree with himself.
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 6#turning flourescent lights off and on features 'Wickwack', 'Floda', and 'Keit'. They don't appear to be up to no good, but it's just plain weird to run through three aliases just answering a question about fluorescent tubes.
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 18#Seismic morse code starts with responses by 'Ratbone' (among others); 'Ratbone' becomes increasingly vexed by disagreement with another IP. After three 'Ratbone' posts, 'Keit' appears to lend support: "Didn't you read anything that Ratbone and SteveBaker wrote? Information theory, as both have outlined, is a well established branch of science...". 'Ratbone' then returns to make another five or so comments in the discussion.

...and I'm losing interest in looking for more. If you do a Wikipedia-namespace search for pairwise combinations of Ratbone, Keit, Wickwack, and Floda, anyone can find dozens of Ref Desk pages where they show up together, often to offer mutual support and endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 30 May 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.

μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just to ping someone reading; this has been open for a few days now, at least 2 have gone by without any further comment. Can we get an uninvolved admin to evaluate the discussion? --Jayron32 03:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• It looks as if the 'Supports' have it, but there is strong consensus too for a last chance. However, rather than giving him more incentive to game the system, I would suggest simply deleting their posts (with edit summary 'IP sock') very quickly each time until he gets fed up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. Just do it already, if we have another Jarlaxleartemis/Colourwolf/Bambifan101/Kagome85 or anything even remotely like that again I'll probably chalk it up to a "another attempt at being a Jedi Sock Master." 173.58.58.122 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think the intent of the Last Chance votes is to effectively ban the user now, with the condition that if he registers there'll be no problem with that use under good (i.e., non-sock) behavior. In other words, a ban wouldn't extend to a registered account unless the other behaviors continued. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban unless this person registers, per Medeis’s Last Chance, and shows some understanding of WP:SOCK.—Odysseus1479 01:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Additional evidence: The IP 120.145.145.21 signed as Wickwack [95], Floda[96] and Keit[97]. Modocc (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Just another datestamp ping to request that an uninvolved administrator close this, judge consensus, and do what they see fit. --Jayron32 21:15, 6 June 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.

RFPP unprotect requests

User:Webclient101 added 26 requests to the unprotect section of WP:RFPP. I looked at a few of them, and they are all related. In 2011, User:Dabomb87 semi-protected the articles indefinitely because the pending changes trial was over. Webclient101 wants to reenable pending changes. Dabomb87 hasn't edited Wikipedia since the end of last year, so they can't be consulted.

My recommendation is we unprotect the pages without pending changes. Indefinite anything needs to be justified, and it's not clear to me why these articles have been semi-protected for two years, or why we should continue it, even with a lower level of protection. Obviously, if editing becomes disruptive on any article, it can be taken back to RFPP and an admin can evaluate whether protection is warranted.

If there's agreement with my recommendation, I will go through all of them, insure they fall within the same pattern, and unprotect them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of prudence, I would say change SPP to PC1 for the BLPs, and unprotect the others. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Salvidrim here. As this would in line with the request, it wouldn't be contentious to do so. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Some of these were semi'd before the trial for BLP violations. In my opinion, those should remain as-is. As for the rest, they should probably be unprotected. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indefinite PC1?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I will admit a bias that says all BLPs should have indef PC1 at a minimum, so that would be agreeable with me, yes. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I was unaware of that bias. I'll wait for more comments, but if there's a consensus to keep some sort of protection on the BLP articles, that's fine, but I wouldn't take the laboring oar to implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Salvidrim. However, pages like toast and sound will always be a popular target for vandalism. Why shouldn't those pages have pending changes enabled? Webclient101^talk 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're subjected to a large amount of vandalism, they will be protected as needed. Looking at the page history, neither of them have been vandalized for over 6 months, so protecting them is a solution waiting for a problem. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Six months from when? They've been semi-protected for two years.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are the diffs I am referring to...although I should have said "one year". [98] [99] WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Both edits were (obviously) done by auto-confirmed accounts, so their significance is marginal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but both accounts were autoconfirmed through the vandalism. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

PC for high-traffic pages rarely works out well. We cannot know if they would be frequently edited by non-(auto)confirmed editors due to the two years of SPP. If, once unprotected, vandalism becomes too much to reasonably handle with reverts, it is never too late to apply protection again; at least, then, we'll know for sure that it is absolutely needed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

While I tend to prefer, as Dennis, the idea of some level of PC for BLPs, I'm not sure that some of the BLPs wouldn't be best unprotected. As one example Michael Hastings (journalist)'s moment in controversy has probably passed us by, he very well might do fine unprotected. In the general case, the PC mechanism we have now functions more poorly if too many articles are put onto it, and/or if high-volume articles are put onto it. Obviously Michael isn't a problem there either way, but I think there's some argument for being selective about the use of PC. For the non-BLPs, I'd unprotect most of them, but each should still be assessed individually, there's some odd history to Wheely Willy, for example. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would note above that the lack of recent vandalism lately doesn't show that protection isn't needed, only that protection has worked, since they have been protected. I think it is clear from reading above that each article will likely have to be decided on its own merits, and likely a blanket level for all of them won't be optimal. I am still of the idea that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs, but that doesn't mean they all must be protected as a rule, as the consensus doesn't support that, yet. I would say just use your best judgement for each individually. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For history, the articles were indefinitely semi-protected because of an Arbcom overstep. When the PC1 trial was over, I was actually blocked and taken to Arbcom for exercising judgement in the removal of PC1. The mandate from Arbcom was to replaced all PC1 protections with semi-protection of equal length. The result is that many articles wound up with indefinite semi-protection when no protection at all was actually justified.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Any level of "protection" is a deviation from the intended design, done only because of abuse. When people don't know what the status of an article should be, the default choice should always be to make it fully accessible, then watch what happens. It should further be stressed that Pending Changes has become a mechanism whereby articles are less accessible to edits than semi-protected articles, thanks to a long-planned and ostensibly unintended "feature" that editors with accounts can still have their contributions held up behind an IP. Many people are not going to put up with this and just not do anything to the article, and since articles still usually improve, that is worse for the "LP" than if we allow open editing. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Support unprotection per Bbb23's original post and Wnt. NE Ent 01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wnt focuses too much on the "anyone can edit" part and misses the part that matters, the fact that we are an encyclopedia. We have a duty and missikon to get things right. If we focused on the "anyone can edit" issue, we wouldn't have any type of protection, pending changes, or blocks/bans. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If there has been no recent problems and no solid reason to believe there are Huns at the gates, I'd say unprotect. Pretty much per Kww and our actual policies on such things WP:PROTECT. And SirFozzie, your statement is what scares a lot of us about pending changes. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If the fact that we're an encyclopedia and have a duty and mission not to harm others willy nilly scares a lot of people, then I'd suggest the people realigning their priorities. SirFozzie (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • We've been that for a long time. We've gotten there by people editing articles. It has largely worked. If folks want to create a spin-off of Wikipedia that is more restrictive to people editing, I honestly think that's a good idea. But we've always been the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and changing that shouldn't be something that happens at a place like AN, it should be a site-wide discussion. In all seriousness, I have thought about having two levels of Wikipedia. One that has been highly vetted and only has "important" topics (whatever that means) and has a very small set (100s?) of folks who can edit, and one more wild-and-free. The serious one could draw from the good/featured articles of the other... I think it would work. And harm to others would be lessened because the "serious" one would be (more?) commonly used. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
      • This sounds sufficiently similar to, yet somewhat less ad hoc than PC2. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Interesting, I'd not thought of it that way. I think the ability to go head-to-head would be good. I think there would be a market for both, though both would be pulled toward each other. All the weird articles that I like could be kept on the "wild" one. In fact, I often read Wikipedia that way--browsing redirected articles on topics I care about but have trashed removed for not meeting our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposed

Warning: Here be Dramah. Hasteur (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I would like to propose an interaction ban between User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz on the one hand, and User:GiantSnowman and User:Demiurge1000 on the other hand. Things like this have been proposed recently in a non-binding manner, e.g. here and here, following a long history of problematic interactions (often involving other users as well, but these three seem to be the more constant factors in this). Earlier problems have lead to blocks (e.g. my block of Kiefer Wolfowitz on 6 May 2013, explained here and discussed over the next few days). Now we have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2, with another rather uncivil discussion between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Giant Snowman, and with Demiurge discussing Kiefer at User talk:Lukeno94, which lead to a rather problematic reply by Kiefer Wolfowitz. Without going into who is to blame, who is right or wrong, or how this all started (it goes back at least two years, probably longer, but I don't want to start discussing old history again; examples can be found in e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence presented by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring), I think it is time we put an end to this, preferably without further blocks or too much drama. Therefor, I propose an interaction ban between Demiurge and Giant Snowman on the one hand, and Kiefer Wolfowitz on the other hand; no discussing one another, no linking to statements made by the other, no replying to each other, no nominations of each others articles for deletion, no participation in a GA or FA discussion where the other is one of the main contributors of the article, ... The only allowable interactions would be normal forms of dispute resolution about each other (one may start an RfC or ArbCom case about the other; they shouldn't start discussing in a third-party process though). They would still be allowed to all !vote in discussions like RfA, but without replying to each other or referencing each other's !vote. Fram (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Woah woah woah, Kiefer and I have a difference of opinion (which is pretty much all it is, as far as I am concerned at least) at a RFA talk page and suddenly there's call for an interaction ban between us? Jesus. Let me go further - while Kiefer and I may have had a few disagreements at various noticeboards over the past few months, I for one do not feel the need for an interaction ban. It seems to be making a mountain our of a molehill, finding an issue where there isn't one. We edit in completely different topic areas and our paths rarely cross; when they do, sometimes we disagree and sometimes we don't. I think/hope Kiefer is of a similar opinion. Sometimes things get heated, sometimes they get a bit uncivil, but we both have thick enough skin not to let it bother us. GiantSnowman 13:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) When this was suggested by Fetchcomms c. my RfC/U, I accepted the proposal, and I remain agreeable to an interaction ban including GiantSnowman, who was baiting me on my talk page recently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer, please can you provide diffs to comments of mine that you feel have been 'baiting'? GiantSnowman 13:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)GiantSnowman, this is hardly the first such "difference of opinion" you two have. E.g. from early May, a link I gave above as well; [100], move up a few sections to "personal attacks". And it goes back a long way, I also already gave Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring. Perhaps you don't need an interaction ban, I may be wrong with the whole proposal or by including you, but acting as if this is only about one recent discussion is not really the most convincing way to make your case. Fram (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I don't feel the need to make a case in my defence; and as far as I am aware Kiefer has not requested this interaction ban either. Why have you taken it upon yourself to police our relationship? GiantSnowman 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Support. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose this is an overreaction. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Then how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation, going back for years, which has lead to blocks, bad blood, and recurring disruption? We can give more and/or longer blocks, but is that really the best way to treat these editors and to improve Wikipedia? Having this interaction ban won't suddenly solve all problems, but isn't it worth a shot? Fram (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What problematic situation? How has Kiefer and I's interaction been "going back for years"? Where is the "recurring disruption"? As far as I recall the first interaction we had, positive or negative, was when Kiefer actually supported my RFA back in February 2012! Nothing until the ANI in October 2012 (8 months ago, we both acted poorly) and then a disagreement at his talk page in May, and a further run-in on the talk page of a RFA earlier this week. Using talk pages to discuss matters? My word, indef us both! GiantSnowman 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The situation has been going back for years. Your involvement with it seems to be more recent and may have been less frequent than it at first appeared (and may have been colored in my meomory by other things like this February 2013 comment by Kiefer Wolfowitz[101]). If others agree with you that I have unfairly included you in this interaction ban, I'll remove you from it and restrict the discussion to a interaction ban between Demiurge and Kiefer Wolfowitz only. But I'll wait for more input first, these kind of things are rather complicated and it is hard to get a correct view of the whole image sometimes. Fram (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Fram, you say "the situation has been going back for years" yet you have not provided any evidence. Note that I am talking exclusively about the proposed IBAN between myself and Kiefer. Do I feel I have been unfairly included? Absolutely. As WormTT says, other users have had more run-ins with Kiefer than I have - yourself included Fram! GiantSnowman 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I was asked to come here by Fram as my talkpage was mentioned. I can't really give a vote due to the fact that I get on quite well with GiantSnowman, and find Kiefer infuriating, although Demiurge and Kiefer possibly should have an interaction ban, as that pairing is, to my mind, more problematic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I oppose a formal interaction ban between GiantSnowman and Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I don't see the bad blood, or a long running dispute which would require an interaction ban. Indeed, I believe I have had more unpleasant interactions with KW than GiantSnowman has, so unless we fancy handing them out very liberally I think it's a poor idea. Regarding the other interaction ban, Demiurge1000 and Kiefer.Wolfowitz - I support it in principle, but I don't think it is the solution. The long term bad blood has spread off-wiki, to a certain forum and to IRC. The only way it will work is if both parties genuinely agree to the interaction ban and take it to heart - quitting all discussion of the other. I do not expect this to happen on either side, making the entire sanction redundant. Furthermore, I'm not keen on the formation of the interaction ban - I'd prefer a more simple text. WormTT(talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)I no longer support a two way interaction ban even in principle, it will do no good. WormTT(talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) So far, only WTT has raised a concern about an interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself, and he supports a ban. Is there consensus for a standard interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Patience! The discussion should stay open for at least 24 hours and have some more participants (e.g. giving Demiurge a chance to respond may be a good idea). Fram (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you, most kind! I do understand the annoyance you may feel here; you block one disputant having previously blocked the other, another admin unblocks them without discussing it with you, that disputant then repeats the problematic behaviour, the other disputant then comes to your talk page moaning about it, and so on and so on. Having said that, though, if you do choose to get involved in "policing" particular people (as GS puts it), you shouldn't be too put out when the people being policed keep turning up at your police station's front desk questioning one thing or another. And, more to the point, if Dennis had not overturned your 6th May block without discussing it with you, then the disruption at the RfA would not have happened, nor would KW's comments aimed at The Rambling Man and Luke, nor would my informing Luke of the existence of the earlier RfC/U, nor would KW's questionable comments after that. So, you ask, "how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation", the answer is that you had it right the first time, and you were over-ruled! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I think we established below that the issue was GiantSnowman's choice of words and he has admitted as much, not KW's participation. Even if someone didn't like his !vote, it should have just been overlooked. To assign all the drama of the last few days with my unblocking of KW some time back stretched credulity to the breaking point. I forgot to add, I do believe that I unblocked you once after Fram blocked you, but you didn't complain about an early unblock there.  ;-) Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The block was set to run until a couple of days from now, I think. If you had not overturned it, the comment would not have been made, and, more to the point, the following problematic behaviour would not have happened either. We're here because you overturned the block in the belief that the behaviour would not repeat; you were wrong. You may feel the !vote should have been overlooked, but others don't agree; it's not at all unreasonable for other editors to reply to a comment that belittles the efforts of an editor just because of their choice of topic area. (This sort of attitude was mentioned right back in 2011 at the RFC/U - KW agreed to try to fix it - has he?) Yes, GS did not make that reply in the right manner, and has apologised for it; but he was certainly not the only one to share that concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose. The evidence presented is utterly inadequate to justify imposing an involuntary interaction ban. My comment to Luke was to inform him of the existence of an earlier RFC/U, after he had asked TRM about proposing one; I mentioned parts of the close of that RFC/U (worked out with great care by an independent administrator acceptable to all parties) about issues similar to those that concerned him; informed him of available options; and cautioned him to be aware of the sorts of responses that any of those options might receive from some other editors. This was not in the least combative. (KW's replies, by contrast; [102] [103]). Fram's other links are to (1) the RFC/U which Worm and I prepared in 2011, which was widely agreed to have been helpful in highlighting at least some issues that KW needed to address; and (2) KW's arbcom evidence where he attacked Worm, me, DGG, Elen of the Roads, and Scottywong (if any of those other editors react unwisely to an unusual RfA comment from KW in the future, will they be subject to interaction ban proposals too?). Neither of the other incidents listed, including the RfA madness which Stfg rightly describes as "grotesque" and which is the background to this whole incident, had anything to do with me - I did not comment at either. It's all very well (and indeed true) to theorise that if person X and person Y were blind to each other's existence then there would be less drama, but forcing an interaction ban down the throat of one of them, without any evidence of that person being responsible for disruption (I've never been blocked in any dispute I've had with KW, nor even close I believe), is more likely to cause drama than prevent it. As Stfg says, interaction bans rarely work very well. Leaping to an involuntary one, for the sake of perceived convenience, without evidence justifying it, would be very unwise. I also Oppose the suggested interaction ban between KW and GS. Plenty of other administrators have been described as "dishonest" or "abusive" or similar by KW, and as GS points out, some of them have had confrontations with him more than once. (The Rambling Man is a rather recent addition as far as I can remember, so may not fit in that category.) Why pick on GS? (One over-reaction for which he has apologised, and perhaps a mistaken comment somewhere in the distant past?) Is there a possibility that perhaps it's not all the targets of KW's ire that are at fault, but someone else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) (redacted comment by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, is this some kind of accusation of grooming Wikipedia editors? "his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia".... This needs serious intervention now, as KW's wild accusations have crossed the line. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That is a horrendous accusation and needs to be oversighted. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC) It's worse than horrendous, KW should be blocked for accusations of this nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC) (redacted comment by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I read it that KW is saying that User:Demiurge1000 is taking advantage of the editors inexperience to recruit them into some conflict with others. There is no sexual implication in the comment. John lilburne (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What the actual fuck did I just read? Apart from the sheer idiocy of Kiefer assuming that I am in any way affiliated with Demiurge (I am not, and never have been), and the fact I've used the IRC here about 3 times, all when the servers are down, that has to be one of the most disgraceful accusations I've ever seen, regardless of any sexual nature (or lack of) in the comment. Kiefer should be blocked, and blocked for a while, for that comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Quite. Anyone that empathises with KW's grooming comments needs close inspection. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I will note here that Luke has never attempted to contact me in any way ; and my only contact with Luke has been my one post currently visible on his talk page, the purpose of which I describe in detail above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'm also going to note that Lilburne is here after KW canvassed multiple times at an off-wiki forum (including, now, complaining about being indefinitely blocked there), where KW did indeed use the g word, and where he also had some more-than-unpleasant comments to make about Luke. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Oh sweetheart, this page has been on my watchlist for a long long time. I just don't normally comment here unless something really dumb happens. And the only one that has used the word grooming here is The Rambling Man. John lilburne (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose Spirited, emphatic exchanges don't violate any policy. NE Ent 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC) GS and KW Does anybody think that GiantSnowman's behavior at this RfA meets the standard of an administrator? Or satisfies the civility and NPA expectations of all editors? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer, please provide diffs from the RFA of my failings as an Administrator (impossible, I didn't use any tools), as well as examples of my incivility and personal attacks? GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I would like to say, without having a horse in this particular race, that the notion of an Administrator not using tools and therefore not having failed as an Administrator is a non-sequitur. Any Admin involved in any dispute uses judgement, the entire basis on which they were selected as an Admin. Just because tools are left at the door in a dispute does not mean that Admins cannot fail in using judgement and that, in any situation - tools or not - is unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I concur.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC) It is refreshing to read your responses. Perhaps a word with another administrator with hyperactive behavior at this RfA might be in order? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC) User:Stfg seems to have issue, per his comment at the RfA and I agree. The comment "Pure snobbery" was unnecessarily combative. Once it was explained that Giantsnowman was mistaken in how he interpreted the "Andy Capp" comment, instead of leaving well enough alone, his excuse was "As for AGF, I'm afraid it only goes so far with KW." I think Giantsnowman has lost his objectivity here. I'm normally against interaction bans in general, and have never supported one with an admin involved, but an air gap is likely the best solution. As for using the tools, it doesn't matter here. WP:NOTPERFECT states "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. " It seems you have some animosity towards KW and I think it is clouding your judgement here. I'm not saying it is actionable, but GSM's actions were far from exemplary. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC) When you put it that way, I admit that some of my comments at the RFA talk page were not my finest and for that I apologise to all involved, especially Kiefer. I should not have described his attitude as "snobbery" and I should have tried harder to AGF. I would like to assure you that I do not have any animosity towards Kiefer; regardless of the outcome of this discussion (and I hope no formal IBAN is implemented, as I do not see the need for one) I will work on what has been raised. GiantSnowman 15:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That is a good thing. What you and I must remember is that when we push the limits on civility, most editors are afraid to speak out because of our "admin power". No matter how unimpressive it might be to you and I, others are intimidated by it to different degrees and many are unwilling to speak out. This is why you and I are both held to the higher standard and have to go the extra mile to insure we stay neutral, else we make bystanders feel powerless and unable to speak out. You have to reach back and remember how you felt well as a new user, before getting the bit. Of course, we are human, and we screw up like anyone else, and forgiveness should come just as easily for these kinds of things. Even without the interaction ban, I would still recommend keeping that air gap between the two of you, let time heal some wounds. Even if you don't feel them, I'm pretty sure KW does. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) My attempt to bury the hatchet with Kiefer was immediately reverted. Make of that what you will. GiantSnowman 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC) This is why I think the air gap is needed. From my experience, KW is not one who wants to discuss or engage after an "event", so it isn't about you personally, it would be the same (and has been) in any disagreement. My experience with KW started at my RfA and has been checkered at times, but my experience has been that you just need to step away, as his wounds tend to heal on their own timetable. You and I are probably the opposite of KW in this respect, and would rather quickly bury the hatchet, but we are not universal in this. I recommend overlooking it and moving on. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Dennis, How quickly do adults change personality or behavior? How credible is GS's sudden change, after months of complaints (from me and others)? His "wasn't my best" still falls short of accepting responsibility for his behavior. I have known too many nurses and social workers to engage in enabling behavior. I recently was pleased to accept an apology from another editor, whom I had previously criticized for "copping out"---i.e., that is, falling short of taking responsibility, on 2 occasions. That editor wrote his apology fully, quickly, and on his own volition. Nobody needed to push him to make a minimum apology, and he wrote a very generous and gracious note, indeed. Let him be an example to us all. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I appreciate the attempt, but wouldn't read too much into the reversion. It is KW, after all.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Watch Carlito's Way and consider whether Benny was a hero. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I haven't seen it. Doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but it has decent ratings, so maybe someday.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Sound advice from you both. As stated at the very beginning, interaction between Kiefer and myself is actually minimal as we edit in completely different areas, so letting "time heal all wounds" should not be a problem. Up and Atom! GiantSnowman 15:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Dennis has done a fine job of representing my POV, and I thank him for it. As almost always, I agree with everything he has written in this section. I don't know enough about the background to comment on whether an IBAN is a good idea, except to point out that IBANs don't work very well. They are too easy to game -- actually, they are an invitation to gaming. The current RfA and its talk page are grotesque, and this is a big problem, because when RfAs turn into slugfests like that, it disenfranchises the nice people by chasing them away. People shouldn't have to jump into a fire to have their say on who gets mops. From his comments above, I'm sure GiantSnowman understands this and won't rise to the bait again at RfA (I don't care what happens on their own talk pages). Does Kiefer understand the problem, and does he plan to change anything to help solve it? If not, I think the only way for it to get solved is for the community to impose a solution, unfortunately. --Stfg (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Have you made any other predictions, that would let us evaluate the worth of your surety? We would like to be able to pretend that it was better than your accuracy in recognizing baiting.... Again, talk is cheap. GS has not struck through any of the inappropriate remarks at RfA, which he claims and you endorse to be now beneath him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I didn't understand a word of that, but never mind. --Stfg (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC) KW blocked Lots of good blocks that can be used to make cool things. I have indefinitely blocked KW for this edit, which goes far beyond the bounds of acceptability, and really should be oversighted, or at least revdel'd (the edit summary is also a personal attack). Indefinite does not mean infinite, and I am not averse to the block being reduced in time (in fact, I will support a fixed length of time, once community consensus arrives at an appropriate length. This entire discussion has been acrimonious, but that is so heinous that someone who is not involved needed to step in. Horologium (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. How many times do we have to play his game before we and/or he figures it out. Go Phightins! 21:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Idiotic. But not surprising. Intothatdarkness 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Comment I'm referring to the block. Don't want anyone confused. Intothatdarkness 21:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Kiefer's repeated ridicule of younger people has grown tiresome. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Looks like a good block to me and that should be over-sighted immediately as it looks to be an attempt to out the other user based on unverifiable opinion or some such ridiculousness. Technical 13 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What part of WP:OS is this covered under? --Guerillero | My Talk 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The one that is suppose to protect people's sexual preference. The comment and it's edit summary imply that the user it is directed at is a pedophile or at very least homosexual. I honestly do not care if that user is homosexual or not, but declaring that the user is would fall under 1.Removal of non-public personal information, 2. Removal of potentially libelous information, and 5. Removal of vandalism I would suspect... Wouldn't you agree? Technical 13 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Why are you talking about sexual preferences and pedophiles? John lilburne (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I seem to have read the comment strangely and missed the paedo angle. I agree this should be removed from public view --Guerillero | My Talk 22:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Too many people have been way too tolerant of this type of incivility from this user. It's disruptive and discourages a collaborative environment. I propose at least a three month block, which will give KW a chance to reflect on how he might contribute here without stirring up drama and attacking other editors. - MrX 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) KW didn't open this thread up. NE Ent 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC) How is that relevant? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I don't think it's appropriate to categorize someone dragged to AN as "stirring up drama." NE Ent 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) You had to know that I was not merely referring to today's drama. - MrX 00:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Not sure how it counts as outing. Whilst admittedly it is easily mis-read in the way @The Rambling Man: describes, reading it more carefully I can plausibly believe that Kiefer meant absolutely nothing of the sort, and was simply commenting on the "political" methods allegedly used by Demiurge. Whilst undeniably a personal attack (especially the last bit) it is not block-worthy certainly not indef-block-worthy.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Not commenting on the rest of this, but you're saying that personal attacks are no longer block-worthy? --Rschen7754 21:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC) There's never been a consensus that they were -- see failed proposal Wikipedia:Incivility blocks NE Ent 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:NPA - especially the first paragraph. --Rschen7754 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'll call your WP:NPA and raise you an arbcom finding. NE Ent 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That's a red herring - there is a distinction between "blockworthy" and whether the editor actually gets blocked for it. --Rschen7754 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I meant "indef-block-worthy".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Fair enough - I'm not exactly sure where I fall on this one. --Rschen7754 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What do you mean, "'political' method"? What "political method" is being described there? Is there a political method that deals with "recruiting inexperienced young men or boys" and " involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia" and "behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men" ? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The "political method" could come from the rest of the bit you quoted, which reads "to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games." Intothatdarkness 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What do those games have to do with "boys and young men"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Their naïvety in being manipulated on WP and on IRC to argue with KW etc. and stoke up bad blood between them.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What does their gender have to do with it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Well, mainly because all the editors named are both relatively young and male. To be honest, when I first read it I saw that as an analogy to the way young men were manipulated (hence the use of "footsoldiers") into going to war in the First World War, but maybe that's just me.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Ah. OK Thanks. I appreciate now understanding where you were coming from with "political". I see the board is in agreement that, whatever it was, it was PA and that would be an over-the-top PA. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I can't see the comment because that's restricted to admins only and I cannot be trusted with such awesome power but it seems like the comment has been taken out of context. I do think the indefinate block is definately not appropriate. This was not a good reason to indef an established user. I also think this little support no support is not necessary. Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC) If it's been oversighted then admins (lotsapeople) can't see it; only oversighters (lots less people) can. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC) It was revdeled, but has been restored. I can see it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. That was extremely out of line. WikiPuppies bark dig 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What was out of line? John lilburne (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) KW's comment. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Don't be obtuse. Which comment? John lilburne (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The one he was blocked for. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC) If you don't want to be taken for a fool stop acting like one. John lilburne (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) How am I acting like a fool? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC) John, it's the first link in this section. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I know that, and people are reading far more into it than what was actually said, are they not? John lilburne (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC) How do you interpret "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'd read it in its context and interpret the above to be asking whether it is appropriate for a seasoned editor to recruit young and inexperienced editors to participate in a drama war against one's opponents. Now the question is whether D is doing that or not. I don't participate on IRC or the other hangouts so don't have an opinion. Though I do have the impression that when young editors appear on the drama boards with fully fledged opinions about editor X or Y. that D is somewhere near at hand. But that is only an impression, I may be wrong. John lilburne (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Overreaction to statement by politically correct Americans reading sexual innuendo into a statement. NE Ent 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Take out the Americans, please. I understood what he meant. Intothatdarkness 21:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Color me American but I can't see how that was an appropriate statement. I like KW - he's the last man standing on readable RfA opposes - but this is not acceptable. If cultural differences are behind all this, then an explanation is in order before an unblock. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Colour me British. Colour me 'not impressed by KW'. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Color me unimpressed by the majority of this. Blocking was likely inevitable in any case. Doesn't mean it smells any better. Intothatdarkness 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block - I understood what he meant as well, he meant to wp:game the system and wp:bait any who would fall prey to his malfeasance.--My76Strat (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good Block. The only goal in that comment was to be as inflammatory as possible. Resolute 22:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I think the use of "young men and boys" rather than the more obvious "young editors" makes it clear that KW's edit was intended to be read as an allegation of something other than interference. I support a block, but I'd make it 24 hours. Prodego talk 22:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC) But he came off a block that lasted for 2 weeks just last month... --Rschen7754 22:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) If the block is not just for this particular edit, but rather a pattern of incivility, then longer or indef may be justified. I'm not familiar enough to make that judgement, I was just basing my response on the justification given at the top of this section ("for this edit"). Prodego talk 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Very good block. The specific wordings he used has VERY negative connotations, and as such, I would not support an unblock until they apologize for the comment, and publicly undertake a commitment NOT to stray down these bounds again. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC) comment; it's very early days, here, but given the overwhelming consensus I'd strongly suggest nobody unblock unless they want to get thwapped. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block, largely per SirFozzie. I find myself agreeing with him on occasion, but I've been dismayed at his aggressive nature lately, and this can't continue, one way or another. --Rschen7754 22:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'm guessing that your second sentence is discussing KW and not SirFozzie, but you might want to clarify just to be safe. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That is correct. --Rschen7754 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block If this were the sole disruptive incident in his career I'd have said this was over the top, and have favored a more limited block, but given the long history of stirring up trouble for trouble's sake, this seems like the right move. Also, the egregious nature of these comments, carefully crafted to be provocative to the point of offensiveness, and yet deliberately containing enough circumlocution to give him some wiggle-room of deniability shows that he knew exactly the kind of effect he was going for in his comments, and that sort of deliberate manipulation isn't something we need at a place where our primary goal should be the building of knowledge. Any contributions lost from Keifer will be more than made up by other people who now won't be driven away from the project by behavior such as this. --Jayron32 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Keep the block and forward to the OS team. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block - the blocked for statements appear to be deliberately cruel. Note also, the personal attack apparently was not aimed only at one editor but other named editors, partly on account of alleged personal characteristics (age and gender). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Exceedingly bad block, as per NE Ent. Colour me British, but I'm also exceedingly unimpressed by the behaviour and attitudes of Ironholds. Eric Corbett 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block - I've seen a lot of nasty personal attacks here on WP, but not at all subtely insinuating that a fellow editor is a child molester takes the cake. Far, far beyond the pale, and totally inexcusable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Sound block. Deliberately inflammatory choice of language, of a sort usually used to describe extremely grave misconduct. Not explicitly calling someone a criminal or moral degenerate doesn't give one a free pass to use terminology so often (and almost exclusively) found in that context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC) If the use of gender-specific language was not intended to imply any gender-specific immorality, then its use was stupid as well as being uncivil and a personal attack. At this point, my interpretation is that the blocked editor is trying to game the system by claiming that a gender-specific insult was not meant to be gender-specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) He was being a bit of a meanie and should apologize for any untoward implications, but can we please stop with all this "good block" silliness?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Given that the point of this thread is at least partly to get consensus on the block, how is it silliness for those who agree with the block to say so? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Because the block was silly? Surely nobody in their right mind believes the "an indefinite block isn't infinite" bollocks? Indefinite blocks are used as cudgels to force apologies and repentance for perceived sins, and as such are to be abhored. Eric Corbett 23:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I agree. I'd like to see them prohibited.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Well it is not going to work because I am not apologizing for a thing.--My76Strat (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The silliness is with the "good block" phrasing and the whole rush to affirm the random admin action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Your credibility is diminished by such a statement!--My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good Block -- This user is extremely abusive and the edit in question is without question insulting. Looking over his edit history, he is skilled at talking his way out of blocks, which is rather unfortunate. Please keep him blocked, for the betterment of the project.Lettik (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It took someone else implying the sexual angle to get even my internet-polluted brain to read the comment in that fashion. Seems an overreaction to me. Arkon (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Comment from blocking admin: One thing really needs to be addressed, because more than a few people don't seem to get why I dropped the hammer on KW. This whole kerfuffle (the most recent one, not the festering carbuncle which contributes to this whole sordid affair) was started by KW's comments on a specific editor's writing ability at that editor's RFA. Make no mistake--KW is an exceptional writer. In fact, he is far too good a writer for his specific choices of words in the edit for which I blocked him to be mere happenstance. He deliberately chose phraseology and verbiage which would imply that the specific editors whom he named in the post were involved in something more unsavory than simple votestacking. He chose the most inflammatory phrases possible, and worked them into his post in a way which (barely) provided some sort of cover. Were he a less proficient writer, one whose editing history was not littered with incidents of personalizing arguments in a nasty fashion, I might have decided to issue a warning or a limited-duration block. But when the last block issued (for similar incivility) was for a duration of 1 month, and it stood for 18 days before being lifted (with a promise that he wouldn't do it again [104]), I felt that a block was needed, and decided that the community was better suited to determining the duration than a single admin. As I noted above, I didn't intend this to be a permanent block, only one whose length was not yet defined. My personal opinion is that anything more than 2 months is too long, but if the consensus is that he should be unblocked immediately or that he should remain blocked permanently, I will not object. I don't think that either choice is the optimum decision, but of course, YMMV. Horologium (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) That seems very reasonable and fair to me... I tend to agree that long blocks don't necessarily work well. Based on your comments alone, I would say that 6 weeks would be fair. It is a little more than the 2.5 weeks his block actually lasted out of a 4.5 week block. Technical 13 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Given that in theory blocks aren't meant to be punitive, I just don't get this block-length argument at all. Why six weeks rather than four or five? What harm was being prevented anyway? Eric Corbett 01:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Blocks may not be punitive, but they can be corrective. They also protect the project from disruption and, in this case, may prevent other editors from leaving the project because they tire of being insulted, mocked, berated, ridiculed and accused of all manner of ill deeds. His last unblock was a failure of process, in my opinion. He talked his way out of the block using the same types of arguments that are advised against, full of equivocation and blame. We have a principle of escalating block lengths for good reasons. If someone can't get some clue after 10 blocks in a year and a half, then I doubt that shorter blocks will have an enduring positive effect for the project. - MrX 02:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC) How can blocks be "corrective" if they're not also punitive? I take it that you're familiar with basic learning theory? I recently became acquainted with a parrot whose behaviour had been "corrected" by having the metal floor of the cage he lived in being electrocuted every time he bit. Is that what's going on here? Eric Corbett 02:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) First, thanks for letting me know how startled you are. Second, please see Operant conditioning. Correction does not only result from punishment. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Please don't try taking the piss. Unlike you I have a degree in psychology. Eric Corbett 03:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC) And just remind me, what harm has KW caused to the project? One might even argue that disrupting RfA is of some benefit to the project, in that it might make some dinosaurs rethink their position on that ridiculous and dishonest process. Eric Corbett 02:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) All the time that is wasted on these notice boards and talk pages dealing with bad behavior would be better spent collaborating to improve articles, tools, bots, help pages, and helping new users. Do you really think that treating our fellow editors like shit is helpful to the project? How many editors simply walk away from the project in disgust because of an insulting edit summary? I don't think that disrupting RfAs make them better. I think open discussion, compelling arguments and seeking common ground are a good start though. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) How much of any of that stuff do you do? Eric Corbett 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What KW's behavior does is to drive away editors who would rather not be called paedophiles for disagreeing with him. As I noted above, the world is filled with people who will replace his potential future contributions, but won't be abuse fellow editors in the manner he has done here. --Jayron32 04:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Which only goes to demonstrate that you're a malevolent idiot. Eric Corbett 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I love you too. --Jayron32 04:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Per Jayron. KW does not seem to have learned from previous blocks and apparently has no intention of improving his attitude within the collaborate spirit of this project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block- Agree with most of the above. KW's seemed to spend a lot of time griefing and insulting people, punctuated by bouts of ultra-defensive hysterical screaming. This sneaky accusation of pedophilia is the last straw. Reyk YO! 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block - I called for it, and to be perfectly honest, that edit should be oversighted. Utterly disgusting behaviour, a massive smear against myself and several editors (regardless of any sexual nature) and just the latest in a long line of bollocks from that user. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC) In my opinion since it's been repeated in whole or in part so many times, oversighting it is moot. --Rschen7754 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I find it implausible, given the context, that the choice of words was anything other than intentional and there isn't an option to casually "strike the offending phrase" when it comes to such a blatant personal attack. I also don't find any reasonable excuse in dismissing it as a matter of "political correctness" or cultural differences... "Young boys" is not a synonym for "new editors." user:j (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block per Jayron 32's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block clearly was meant to be inflammatory. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Bad block. While KW's comment could definitely have been worded better, it doesn't have to be interpreted in a sexual way. Inflammatory, yes. Worthy of an indefinite-block? No. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Understandable, but incorrect block. I quite realise that I am in the minority here, but there's a much bigger issue than KW's behaviour here, much as he appears to be trying to earn himself an indef block by testing the boundaries. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The much bigger issue is? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I think the original title of this section (before KW got himself blocked) will provide you with the answers you need, as will my comment below. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC) They don't indicate big issues, so no. But perhaps your directions were misunderstood.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Bad block which should be overturned. Dirty minds think dirty. Optimom (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Let's call it what it is - an obvious attempt to smear an editor as a paedophile, which is quite honestly disgusting. But since he's from Wikipediocracy, I can't really say I'm surprised, that's just the way they operate over there. Prioryman (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC) If you're gonna block KW for this perceived personal attack then obviously Prioryman's above personal attack (But since he's from Wikipediocracy, I can't really say I'm surprised, that's just the way they operate over there.) and assholish slander qualifies as well? So where is his block? Fucking hypocrites. THIS is exactly why most people who edit Wikipedia think "opportunistic cowardly scum" when they see the word "admin".Volunteer Marek 07:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) "Most people who edit Wikipedia" or more people from Wikipediocracy? Regardless, it's unclear how insulting a website fulfils the personal aspect of NPA Jebus989✰ 09:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC) He's obviously not just insulting a website but also insulting Kiefer. But ok, fine. I'll keep that in mind. Next time I want to let some schmucko have it and let them know what I really think I'll just refer to some place or nebulous thing they're vaguely associated with. Most admins are still hypocrites and cowards. Why would anyone want to become one at this point is beyond me. Just the stench associated with it alone should drive most decent people away.Volunteer Marek 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Bad block People are reading more into this comment than appears to be there, if one assumes good faith that is, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Assuming good faith, as in assuming that the poster actually meant a personal attack, and that is what was written? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What is written is an accusation saying that Demiurge1000 is doing some politicking and manipulating people to his own ends on wikipedia. Personally I have no idea whether that is true or not and I doubt most of the others chipping in do either, but calling that egregious personal attack worthy of an indefinite block (whether or not it is true) is nonsensical. Blocking someone out of hand for making a claim that is conceivably true, rather than asking him to substantiate or retract it does not make sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What is written is what was quoted above about someone and the personal charcteristics of other someones and being up to bad things in relation to them. Those are personal attacks on multiple people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What do we do when someone makes a personal attack? We ask them to retract it. What did people do in this instance? An indefinite block out of hand. Kiefer subsequently asked for the statement to be striked. When are indefinite blocks for personal attacks justified? According to Wikipedia:NPA#Consequences_of_personal_attacks: "Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor." Are you comparing this comment to the severity of a death threat? Are you claiming that this comment "severely disrupts the project"? If someone had simply requested a refactor or a reconsideration the issues could have been resolved. He offered to strike his comment and thus it does not seem very likely that the editor will continue with this personal attack, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What do we do when someone makes personal attacks? Sometimes we block them. Yes, it severely disrupts the project when people are attacked on the basis of personal charateristics. The comment for most people crosses the line. Are you saying, well gosh, people who make personal attacks based on the personal charcteristics of others should never get blocked? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The unsupported claim that Kiefer made is that Demiurge1000 recruits inexperienced editors and uses them to further his own agenda on wiki. That has nothing to do with personal characteristics. I can not answer the question of whether "people who make personal attacks based on the personal characteristics of others should never get blocked?" as we appear to disagree on what a personal characteristic is exactly. In general I now think (I have changed my position with time, like all people) that a block without prior discussion is always unwarranted except for the case of death threats or other similarly serious issues. I also have the advantage of being in line with policy (as I quoted) in this regard, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The personal charcteristics are age and gender. No one disagrees on that. And yes such attacks are often read as serious disruption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) [citation needed], IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC) WP:NPA says that such age and gender remarks may lead to blocks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Remarks about age and gender? sorry you've lost me again. I see no personal attack against people of a specific age and gender in that diff. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC) "recruiting inexperienced young men or boys" and " involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia" and "behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men[?]" and some named, one of whom certainly does not lack experience on the Pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The people happen to be young, because he appears to be giving an example of inexperienced people. Young people are more susceptible to manipulation, I don't think that is particularly controversial. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Not controversial? Perhaps if you reread this page and those "young men and boy" comments, you will agree that it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC) While I havehad some pleasant, even amusing conversations with Keifer I have also been the subject of his attacks and condescention. When he is challenged, even if you point out evidence of a mistake, he will simply try to "unsay" what he said or try to suggest you are too stupid to understand him rather than own up to his own mistakes. That is what he did when he attacked me, and it is what he is doing right now. For someone who makes such a pretentious show at having skill with words it ddefies reason to think the innuendo in that remark was anything but very deliberate. And this suggests he has been doing it for a very long time and that blocks of short duration have no effect in curbing the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Core problems addressed? Guys, are you sure these proposed interaction bans and recent blocks are addressing the core problem, or just the symptoms? Are there any behavioral problems by the three parties involved that need to be addressed besides imposing interaction bans? Is there any merit to the allegations being leveled by the parties against each other? Don't know? Then why don't you administrators do your jobs, investigate this situation total, and come to a conclusion instead of just trying to put a band aid over it. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Because that would involve a little bit of work? Eric Corbett 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I have to admit that I have some real reservations on this. Admittedly I don't have time to research it all, but looking at the link provided by the blocking admin. ... could someone PLEASE tell me how "sex" was introduced into this topic? I'm not seeing it in the link provided by the block log. As much as I'm all in favor of "political correctness" .. I think some folks are really reaching on this. Could ya'all go back and revisit what was typed and rethink this please? — Ched :  ?  02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that there is a zero tolerance policy when you put sex, men, and boys into a sentence. If that had happened Kiefer would already be banned and locked. So obviously there's no solid allegation that it did. The first person to mention "sex" at all was John lilburne, a supporter of Kiefer, when he said "There is no sexual implication in the comment" at 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC). That may have started a diversion, but it started there! My comment after an edit conflict was it was gaming and baiting, and it was. I hope that helps with your question.--My76Strat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC) My statement was in response to The Rambling Man cherry picking a phrase from KWs post and preceding it with 'grooming', then adding "worse than horrendous" and Darkness Shines calling for oversight. take this advice skip don't try to invoke me in your perverted reading sessions - OK. John lilburne (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (EC)::Ched's comments aside, I think Cla68 was getting at the elephant in the room, that the substance of his comments is being overlooked in favour of jumping on the fact he made them & what they could be interpreted to mean etc. Ignoring the speculation on what KW was implying, if what he was referring to is accurate, it needs to be addressed *somewhere*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) And what was the "substance of his comments"? They had no substance beyond the offensive suggestions as far as I can see. Paul B (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC Well thats rather the point, you (and others) find what you think he was suggesting offensive, and are ignoring what (he says) he was saying. Which while probably inappropriate should not be totally ignored. Although if the consensus here is 'KW is blocked, lets forget all about it' fine. Need a big rug to hide that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC) He isn't saying anything with any content at all. It's all smoke and mirrors. "Ooh, I wonder what they're getting up to...". But it's palpably designed to be suggestive and offensive, and that is, in practice, threatening behaviour, because if frightens editors off disagreeing with him, as Luke has already pointed out. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Only someone completely obtuse can miss the "grooming" implications of KW's comments, and it is ridiculous beyond words to act as though they were in any way innocent. The fact that he deliberately phrased them to be as derogatory as possible while leaving himself a "get out" makes the matter worse, not better. A simple naive outburst would be easier to forgive. It was one of the most obnxious examples of bullying I've ever seen, even from Mr Wolfowitz. Paul B (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What "grooming" implications are you talking about? Eh? John lilburne (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Clearly we have people here who are not familiar with either espionage or police tradecraft or language. "Grooming" in that context is often used in the context of preparing an informant or source, especially if it's a false flag recruitment. What we actually have is a horde who sees a nice provocation they can use to get rid of an editor they disagree with or dislike. That's it. Nothing more to see. If the whole "driving people off" thing (which has been tossed out by some people) was applied across the board, there are quite a few people who would no longer be here, including some of those who are calling for KW's head. So just drop the hypocritical ranting and get on with it. Intothatdarkness 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What we have are laughable pretences to innocence, which are bad enough from Mr. W himself. But now we have disingenuousness piling up in layers. Your first sentence seems to derive from a fantasy world. You have a long familiarity with "espionage" do you? Is the Green Cow Flying Tonight? Paul B (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Simply pointing out that there are other uses for the term. Just because you haven't heard of that doesn't make it fantasy. But then again shame on me for trying to discuss with the mob. Carry on. I'm sure there are plenty of pitchforks and torches to go around. Intothatdarkness 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Of course I've heard of them, perhaps you will be showing me a helpful picture of a horse-grooming combs next. Apparently you are the one ignorant of the fact that the word "grooming" was not used in the post in question (though it was used by KW in another post with the same obvious insinuation). What the post did say, transparently piled up language to generate suggestions of sexual misconduct. This point has been made repeatedly with by many editors. I expect you know it yourselfe. Further furrowed-browed professions of mystification will serve no purpose. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) According to many here this headline is intended to have us believe that some young fellow is about to be molested by his father. And presumably this fellow is about to be asked to get his kit off for the bankers. John lilburne (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC) That's obviously wrong, and it still doesn't explain KW's obsession with/tacit allegation of "[his] involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia". Not something we need here. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC) A fundamental breakdown I want to follow on from comments made to User:Ched above. The above threaded discussion has gone completely awry of the WMF's zero tolerance policy. Just as Kiefer would be banned if he had cast aspersions of pedophilia, it is as intolerable to make accusations against Kiefer that he did make such statements, if he didn't. I've seen a lot of very direct allegations that somewhere along the line, need to be corrected. I supported the block because I observed the disruptive behavior. And I observed that Kiefer did not cross that line into violations of "child protection" policy and zero tolerance. So how do we reconcile this?--My76Strat (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I would hope by recognizing that KW likely didn't intend the aspersion. Folk with artistic temperaments often combine the ability to produce beautiful work with a tendency for thoughtless outbursts when they get emotional. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Although having never interacted with KW, I've read a lot of his contribs to various boards and he does have a tendency to get somewhat excessive in some comments. Colour me British/Australian/whatever but writing it the way he did was distinctly suspicious, given the climate of the world these days. Just the use of "young men and boys" would have many people sucking through their teeth and asking what he was alluding to. "New editors" would have put what he meant beyond doubt, but he didn't use it. And it especially didn't help when John Lilburne cast his "sexual" comment into the fray. Blackmane (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Personally, I have little doubt that KW intended the aspersion. Likewise, I have little doubt that his phrasing was specifically chosen to be inflammatory for this exact reason, while trying to create enough wiggle room for his supporters to try and weasel him out of the block. Resolute 16:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Also, possibly he meant a multilayered aspersion in the double or triple entendre manner. It's a risk one runs when in casting aspersions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Reconcile? Probably has to do with narrowly construing a perma-ban policy but skating the edges is still bad form -- it can still be hurtful and it can still be damaging (plus in view of some reasonable observers one may have gone over the edge). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Block duration for KW The blocking admin has asked us to comment specifically on the appropriate duration to see where consensus lies so I will start that process below and hope others will comment as well. 2 weeks block Considering the rationale provided below I have stricken my suggestion of 2 weeks in favor of maintaining the indefinite block.--My76Strat (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indef, with the understanding that this is not necessarily infinite. Reyk YO! 07:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2 weeks block, + a 3 year topic ban from RFA. The comment was so provocative it clearly demanded a block. If he manipulatively intended the innuendo, it warrants a permaban. But it seems much more likely it was driven by thoughtless passion, not intent to bait. KW has an inflexible but very strong sense of right and wrong, and that's why he often kicks off. It's only when KW is in a calm frame of mind that he's a brilliant writer. On the other hand, can't agree with comments above that the world is filled with folk who'd be just as good at building the encyclopaedia. In reality KW would be close to irreplaceable. Not 1 in a 100 have the scholarship to write like KW. And only a tiny fraction have the fortitude for sustained editing. Even as a big fan of KW, I admit his RFA contributions often seem to be inflammatory and even nonsensical. So lets try a solution that gets us the best of both worlds. Please lets not lose him from the rest of the encyclopaedia, where he's a huge net positive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2 week block sounds fine.--Salix (talk): 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC) As the possibility of future disruption is high a two way interaction ban with Demiurge1000 and a topic ban from RfA also seem appropriate. I'm still not convinced he has cooled down enough yet, so a least a week to let the anger dissipate.--Salix (talk): 08:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 2 week block iff KW agrees to be more cooperative with others from now on. Otherwise, count this as an indefinite block vote. --Rschen7754 07:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Modifying this to indefinite as I doubt we will get satisfactory assurances that this will not happen again. --Rschen7754 19:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 3.143328932323 month block! Where the hey are you guys coming up with this crap? Can I get access to the relevant numerical table? There's really only three possible rationales here: 1. You're someone who wants Kiefer to edit Wikipedia. So you say "time served" and let's get on with it. 2. You're someone who doesn't want Kiefer to edit Wikipedia to ever again so you either come right out and say it with the "indef" (wrong, but honest, ok) or you bullshit with this "three month block" or whatever crap which you think makes you look like a reasonable person. It doesn't. You're just the bigger creep. 3. You're a sadistic asshole (and there's a lot of you here) who likes to watch people "suffer on the internet", you're the PvP game player, you treat Wikipedia like some freakin' MMPORG, so you make demands for him to humiliate himself and dangle the promise of an unblock only to snatch it away. Look you monkeys. Either his comment was not actionable, so unblock, or it was bad and he retracted so unblock, or you're just engaging in a lot of unseemly schadenfreude. There are soooooo many people who have commented in this discussion that should be simply ashamed of themselves. This is the fucking Wikipedia community these days and that's why Wikipedia is circling the drain. Volunteer Marek 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Some might also view your first option of the three, as ending up having the effect of milking a few more "good edits" out of KW, only for him to be blocked again (with another dramafest) when he repeats the behaviour a few weeks or months down the line, as happens every time. Do you genuinely believe that is in his own interests, quite apart from the interests of the encyclopedia? Do you think he enjoys it or something? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I'm reminded that this isn't the first time that KW has used the word "grooming" in this manner. Pretty much every accusation KW has levelled at Demiurge1000, can be levelled at me - indeed he has in the past. A large number of the editors I have adopted were below the age of majority and the adoption program naturally attracts younger editors with the mentality of a teaching model for learning how to edit. In the same manner, the adoption process attracts those editors who naturally enjoy teaching. I've worked with Demiurge in the past and have never once found his behaviour towards these editors to be untoward or manipulative, and therefore find the accusations reprehensible. Therefore, I support an indefinite block from the encyclopedia until such time that KW shows understanding that these sort of accusations are unacceptable. I also agree with FeydHuxtable that an RfA topic ban would be a good idea. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I have only actually seen him abusive on talk pages, but on article space he's one of the best editors we have. Two week block is plenty; it's a long topic ban I want to see - at least until he writes a featured article from scratch, or fixed length like a year or so. Perhaps our standard offer may apply?--Launchballer 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (ec) Support extended RfA topic ban as he is very disruptive there. I'll take no view on block duration. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Keep indefinite for now but allow unblock appeal at 2 weeks, which should probably be accepted unless KW acts out of line during his appeal. I also support an indefinite RfA topic ban from a cost-benefit standpoint: the risk of losing or significantly alienating a user is higher than the value of KW's opinion at RfA. I would like to reiterate that he is an excellent content contributor, but he should know when he's stepped beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Concurring again with another admin's comments, I think Worm sums it up well. Indef is the only solution here, because KW never takes his blocks seriously and regularly seems to find himself in the midst of drama - sometimes where his intervention may not necessarily have been needed and used as an opportunity to take more swipes at other users. The new discussion (which isn't the first one) probably won't advance either the situation, or change the consensus(es) reached here at AN - it will only prolong the drama. If nothing else happens but a topic ban from RfA, not only will the 'RfA Deformers' appreciate his absence from that area, but also a few future candidates of the right calibre may be more willing to come forward. There's also the fact that it's finally time to put an end to the traditional immunity from sanctions for good content contributors.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1 month block, with appeal allowed after two weeks and indefinite topic ban of RfA excluding !votes (i.e. allowed to vote, but not to take part in threaded discussion). Whilst I can plausibly believe that the "implications" of the comment were not intended, it was still an unacceptable comment and personal attack.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, KW's comments off-wiki make absolutely clear what implications he intended. He posted to a discussion of this incident saying "If an editor were a sexual predator, what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?" (emphasis added). He offered involvement in Wikipedia:Teahouse as his first suggestion. Classy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) That's an obviously deliberate misrepresentation of what he actually said, and goes a long way to support the idea that you are the one who should be blocked from interacting with him. I believe that he has already agreed to an interaction ban between the two of of you? And to perfectly honest I'd also be prepared to agree to a similar interaction ban, as I find you to be an exceedingly obnoxious and offensive prick I'd prefer never have to deal with again. Eric Corbett 00:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What he actually said is what I've actually quoted. Not much room for misunderstanding there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer @ Wikipediocracy: "It's bizarre that people think that I was talking about sexual grooming.", " I'm indefinitely blocked for imaginary crimes by persons who apparently think that a grown man can have inappropriate relations with a boy or young man (minor) only if the relation is sexual. My stated concerns are about emotional manipulation and political recruitment, as shown by Demiurge1000's on-Wiki and Wikipedia-IRC behavior." If people wish to see the above quote in context they should read the entire thread, not take a single quote out of context, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Do not underestimate Kiefer. This sequence of events was utterly predictable, intentional and carefully crafted by Kiefer himself to generate this exact response. Kiefer carefully contorted his words to fool the minds eye so he could later point out we foolish we all are for misinterpreting them. Not all of us were fooled. He intentionally created disruption using the English language as a weapon, although not as cleverly as he thought, and he has been hoist by his own petard. More than anyone else I have given him every benefit of the doubt, often to the chagrin of others, but this attempt was so tediously obvious, so arrogant that it removes all doubt as to its intent. Whether you call it WP:POINTy, "suicide by admin" or simply self-destructive the result is the same. What Kiefer needs is an epiphany. Unfortunately, I know of no fixed period of time can ensure that happens. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC) From my understanding, he actually was blocked for 2.5 weeks out of his last 1 month block. I think enforcing anything less than 1 month is rewarding him for bad behavior. I also agree with the blocker that anything more than two months would be too much because on the whole, as I understand it, he is typically a good editor. So, I'll stick to my original suggestion above of six weeks, but I'll add the option to appeal after a month. After reading the above discussions I also feel that some kind of topic ban on RfA and probably RfB discussions is probably in order. I would think that three months would be reasonable at this time. Technical 13 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Zero seconds block. Shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. The fact that mediocre writers here are seriously considering blocking KW for months (and thus depriving Wikipedia of his significant contributions) just because he used the words "Young boys" is laughable. --5.144.173.122 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (Open proxy now blocked; has made no contribs other than here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)) All options are wrong. On the one hand, KW is agreed to be an excellent editor in mainspace. On the other hand, KW has a long history of personal attacks and incivility, and it is unrealistic to think that he will learn from this block when he has not learned from previous blocks, and the diatribe that led to this block was malicious, clearly meant to have sexual implications (why else did he refer only to male editors as pawns) but to be capable of being denied as a sexual insult. All options are wrong, because there isn't a mechanism for banning him from talk pages and keeping him in mainspace (and an agreed community ban from talk pages will be violated and we will be right back here again). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Three Months - An indefinite block (unless he is also site-banned, which no one has suggested) just provides an opportunity for him to request unblock. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite, per Worm That Turned. As an aside, I find this kind of discussion utterly fragmenting and frankly a guarantee of no useful outcome to a blocking discussion. By saying "pick a number between 1 second and infinity" we pretty much ensure that it's impossible to get consensus on a time. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Support indefinite per Worm That Turned and Kudpung. Kiefer has unfortunately had issues with several policies, especially with his history of incivility and personal attacks. To quote the immortal words of Wehwalt, "There are too many people here that think contributions excuse conduct, and that clever language, so desired in articles, is to be applauded on talk pages even if insulting regardless of the effect on the recipient. That is wrong." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite per my reasoning a few sections back; user has a history of tendentious behavior which has not gone away despite other attempts at less drastic measures. As a second choice, if this block is to be of a limited duration, then it should go along with an indefinite topic ban from RFA and all RFA-related discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, given that RFA seems to be the locus of the disruption. If KW is a good content contributor and we want to keep him around for that reason, then it makes sense to limit his participation from those areas that cause problems, but still allow him to help the encyclopedia. Still, my first choice is an indefinite ban given that he's demonstrated that he's not willing to change the way he interacts with others given prior opportunities to do so. --Jayron32 14:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite as the disruption has been piling up for long enough. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite, the comment is among the worst I've seen in my time here and shows that the user is not fit to be editing here. Snowolf How can I help? 14:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite Long enough history to justify it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Month at most - I think a month is the max. Lets remember that KW was not the only one that was an issue here and the problem included at least one admin, who as far as I can tell, hasn't been affected. So if you want to block KW that's fine but someone needs to also address tha other problem children in this debacle including the admin that was clearly baiting KW her and on his talk page. If you just going to block the editor, then your just being hypocritical. I also think this long wall of backpatting and editors voting for and against the block is nonsense. An indef block is clearly innapropriate but who cares right. Its just an editor. And people say I am crazy saying there is no us and them mentality. Its clearly visible right here in this very long discussion. And you people say I am unworthy for adminship. Many of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I think it's worth pointing out that KW was blocked for the edit in which he made unsavoury implications about Demiurge, not because of the prior slanging match with GS. It's already been pointed out that GS's behaviour wasn't great and I don't think anyone is disputing that, but it's not worthy of a block anymore than KW's comments in that argument were worthy of a block. It was his comments here that got KW into this position. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I agree the comment wasn't appropriate. I couldn't see it but someone sent it to me via Email. After reading it in context with the conversation though I think it was taken out of context and although not appropriate, wasn't IMO as bad as is being made out to be. I think there are some folks who are using this as an excuse to block KW. As such and since no one else bothered to do the right damn thing I left a note on GS's talk page myself. Of course I am just a lowly editor and not worthy to scold an amdin but I did it anyway because no one here had the moral courage to call him out on his clearly innappropriate behavior because their too busy jumping on the indef block KW bandwagon here. Kumioko (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Kumioko - you say (at my talk page) "I think your actions were especially bad", but what exactly have I done that is worthy of your comments? Saying one of his comments was "pure snobbery"? I've already apologised for that comment and my general attitude towards Kiefer at this RFA talk page, so I have no idea what good you think it will do any of us by raising it all again. PS you'll note I have deliberately stayed away from all the fresh drama here, so many thanks for dragging me back in so ungraciously. Your implication that my actions/comments got Kiefer blocked, or that I have baited him in any way in order to get him blocked are false and offensive and I would appreciate you revisiting/retracting them. GiantSnowman 15:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)That's fair enough. GS has already indicated that he's going to reflect on this and I'm sure he'll take your criticism constructively. As for KW... Not sure who made the comment above. There's no signature but to clarify. You acted innapropriately (as did other users) causing Fram to feel like an interaction ban was needed. Then before anythign can really be said about your activity in the mess, KW makes some inappropriate comments and gets blocked distracting the heat away from you. So, I made a comment on your talk page calling attention to the problem and calling you out on it. And you want me to apologize for scolding you? I do not feel that I need to apologize for telling you to act more like a trustworthy admin and less like a punk kid trying to get another editor in trouble. An apology just ain't gonna happen, because I am not the one who did something wrong even if you don't like the way I said it. Kumioko (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It was Basalisk. You 'called me out' on something I had been already called out on over 24 hours previously. I apologized. You trying to shit-stir or whatever has served zero purpose whatsoever other than making me feel a bit worse and yourself a bit better. Kudos. GiantSnowman 18:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I think the length of time is fairly arbitrary, as fixed-period blocks have proven to be pretty much ineffective in the past. I agree with Dennis in that what KW really needs is an epiphany. I think the most constructive thing we can decide at this board is on a) the interaction ban discussed above and b) a topic ban for Kiefer relating to RfA. I'm not sure what wording would be best, but perhaps a restriction to simple, one-sentence !votes would be appropriate. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC) A 2 week block would be appropriate only if this was the first incident. It's not. It's the latest in a long line of abusive behaviour from Kiefer. The last block was a month long - why should this be shorter? This user is not going to change their ways any time soon, and they're clearly going to try and worm out of the block with a dodgy unblock request or couple anyway. Based on the user's history, it can only be an indefinite block. Anything shorter isn't going to cut the ice. Again, it's utterly irrelevant whether there were any sexual connotations or not: it's a gross personal attack and one of a long history of them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) There seems to be some confusion in your mind: the mantra is "indefinite != infinite", so why are you apparently suggesting that indefinite is longer than a month? And if there were no sexual connotations, which there weren't, in what way was KW's comment a "gross personal attack"? Eric Corbett 15:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) There is no confusion in my mind. The block needs to be indefinite, because it needs to last until Kiefer is convincing enough about any changes to their actions - which is going to be a heck of a long time. As to it being a gross personal attack - it casts completely bullshit aspersions about the motives and actions of several editors, in a way that was designed to be as highly controversial as possible (remember, we're dealing with someone who claims to be a scholar here) and anything that flies this close to suggesting pedophilia (whether it actually crossed the line or not) is just wrong. And it's not just this attack, it's the hundreds that the user has sent out during their time here. There were enough PAs or close-to-PAs during the RfA thread alone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite. There is obviously broad consensus that the tact and direction of KW's comment was decidedly inflammatory and intended to push readers in a specific direction. For as much as people like John and Eric try to argue there was no malicious implication in his statement, the very fact that so many saw it that way underminds their argument, and KW is not so stupid as to not be aware that people were going to think that. Consequently, until KW acknowledges this and agrees that the casting of such aspersions is significantly beyond the pale, he should remain blocked. In my view, the length is up to KW, and it is his decision whether to be unblocked today, tomorrow or never. Resolute 16:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite: If this were a clueless newbie with an otherwise clean record, not familar with how things are done here on WP, I might be inclined to let it go with a slap on the wrist. But KW is not a newbie, and he has a long history of being disruptive. Nor can it be argued that he did not know how this comment would be taken here on WP. Sorry, but whatever benefit might be gained by giving him some more rope is very unlikely to offset the harm that he will do to the project. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that this leopard just ain't going to change his spots. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Two weeks max and then impose a 2-way interaction ban with Demiurge1000. Whilst this was an understandable block, I don't think it was a good one. It is ludicrous to say "well, if you say something like that, of course it's going to be taken in a certain way". How about taking it exactly as it's written? No, it wasn't wise, but it certainly wasn't worth an indef. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) That's less than his previous block for personal attacks. Which makes it utterly pointless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Preventative, not punitive. Sometimes a large amount of editors (or, it appears, pretty much everyone) forgets that. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I don't see much point in kicking people off Wikipedia or banning them from RfA. I'd say - give KW the opportunity to apologize and clearly state that he'll be more careful with his words down the road and, once he's done that, unblock him. If he doesn't do that, then too bad. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Time served If we're going to start blocking people based on how badly their statements may be read or their intent inferred by those who either can't or won't understand either plain English or the principle of charity then we're going to have to block everyone who invokes WP:DICK in response to someone else's actions. I offer myself as a test case by hereby noting that I am justifying my argument against those who would keep KW blocked by invoking WP:DICK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite - For reasons best articulated by Jayron32 two sections up, Dennis Brown in this section and several others commenters. KW has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded our core standards of civility, in spite of multiple blocks, warnings, and attempts to coach him about how to interact with the rest of us mere mortals. Initially, I thought that a longish block might be appropriate, but after reviewing more of his interaction history and the way he craftily wiggles out of the hot seat whenever he's called to account, it's clear to me that a GAME is afoot. Dennis absolutely nailed it. While he may be a good editor, his ultimate goal seems to be to go out in a blaze of glory, leaving as many bodies in his wake as possible, and then kvetching about it at that other website. I also note, with disappointment, that there are some enablers here who find his behaviour excusable, or even laudable, but I suppose that's the nature of this social experiment. - MrX 20:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite the comment in question was way, way beyond the pale, and was certainly block-worthy. If it was an isolated incident I might be prepared to let it go with a block of a few weeks, but this editor has a long history of incivility. Given this, KW should not be unblocked unless he can persuade us that he is going to change his ways, and not until the block has stood for at least a few months. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but the burden should be on the blocked editor to demonstrate that they will behave if unblocked, not on the community to demonstrate that they should remain blocked. Hut 8.5 20:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite for exactly the reasons Dennis Brown points out. KW outsmarted himself. Net negative, as is evidenced by this thread.Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite as Pedro notes, KW has hoisted himself by his own petard. Net negative indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The "net negatives" are those who seem to live in this Hell-hole of vindictiveness. Eric Corbett 20:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What, Hertfordshire? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I've decided not to poison the well by adding diffs from my early interaction with KW, so I'm stating an opinion, honestly held. Nothing more. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Comment - To anyone stating that this should be anything less than a two week block (or even shouldn't be a block at all): look at Kiefer's comments over at Wikipediocracy. I'm not going to link the thread here, but the more you read of it, the more you begin to think that he did genuinely imply this sexual connotation, or certainly something incredibly shady. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Also interesting to note they've made an attempt at outing me there as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting is what sense? Doesn't seem particularly interesting to me. Eric Corbett 21:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It's interesting because he has his real name on his user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC) offtopic by blocked editor. -db The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I don't blame Luke, he is just a child. But when teenagers like himself start thinking they are center of the world, and being condescending to more experienced editors such as KW, they can truly become an annoyance. Luke has now established himself as an "admin puppy" who always sides with the admins, and who seems to enjoy calling for the block of other editors. I sense we will see him asking to be an admin soon. We will see. --Diogotome (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Fiddlesticks. KW has been treating others with condescension for a long time now. People like KW are "admin pitbulls" who go around looking for a reason to try taking a bite out of the nearest admin they can find. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Automatic, we will see you asking to be an admin too, aren't we? You have a dog in this fight. ~ Diogotome (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC) No, you won't and I don't have a dog in this fight (nice pun). AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm quite sure we will. If you can read minds then so can I. Eric Corbett 22:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) In that case, neither of us can. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, I don't know. I see a number of admins, myself included, who aren't taking Luke's side. I've no idea whether he wishes to run for RfA, but as a number of young hopefuls have found before, being regulars at AN/ANI have had the opposite effect at RfA than they expect. Don't you think? Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Is this really all about Luke? I'm beginning to lose track. Eric Corbett 23:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, don't worry, I lost track in about 1987. No, it's not about Luke or anyone else for that matter, I'm just getting the impression that certain issues aren't being dealt with even-handedly here. Keifer isn't exactly helping himself, but that shouldn't be the point. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer isn't helping himself, I agree, but there's a disconcerting degree of asymmetry here, which I'd be inclined to summarise as "I've never liked him and this is a good opportunity to get him blocked forever". Eric Corbett 23:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I feel the need to respond to the criticism of myself, and make a few more comments. 1: I am not an "admin puppy". If I was, I would support all administrative actions. I don't, and it would be daft to suggest that I was. 2: I am not a "child", so please stop making that statement; 18 year olds are legally adults, and tarring me as a child doesn't help your argument anyway. 3: I put my full real name on my page after I was "outed" by Wikipediocracy (which won't have taken much effort, given that this is a username I use almost everywhere) - before that I had left all bar the first letter of my surname out. I had, however, been moving towards naming myself. 4: I'd love to know whom "Diogotome" was. 5: I publicly stated a few months ago that I was not interested in adminship at this present time; that has not changed. I am too aware of my shortcomings to make that move. 6: I do not think I am the "center of the world", far from it. 7: Age should be utterly irrelevant on Wikipedia, assuming you are competent to contribute; I hope that I am indeed that competent. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Speaking as a parent, there is nothing in this world less convincing than someone who is only eighteen saying that age is irrelevant. In doing so you only proclaim, all the more loudly, how entirely relevant your relative lack of adult experience is. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC) One week This appears to be at the low end of the range of those who expressed a specific time (which isn't many). My impression, and I could very well be wrong, is that KW wasn't intending to make the charge implied by the careful wording, but intending to skirt close to the edge, to see how the community would react. Those types of posts often deserve trouts rather than blocks, but the history means it ought to be more than a trout. There's a bit too much hand-wringing over the implications.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite. I don't see any other reasonable alternative when taking this intentional personal attack with the lengthy history of disruption evident from their block log. I don't believe allowing an unblock request any sooner than two months from now would be acceptable, given how quickly this incident followed his most recent block, which was for a month (and he was unblocked early, just a few days shy of three weeks ago). Incivility, targeted attacks, and disruption like this do significant long-term damage to the community and, as a result, the project. user:j (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Which "community" would that be? The faux Ku Klux Klan who frequent boards such as this one in search of someone to lynch? Eric Corbett 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I don't know this editor personally, I don't know his viewpoints. I do know he has a lengthy history of being blocked for disruption and civility, and I do know the personal attack he crafted in this case was particularly nasty. I really don't know what to think about your position that other editors taking issue with his behaviour is akin to Klan activity and your view that an indefinite block supported by community consensus is best described as a "lynching." But I don't think you're doing him any favours in your arguments, frankly. user:j (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Seems to be a great deal you don't know then. Eric Corbett 00:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite: This user has definitely not learned his lesson from his other indef-blocks. His attitude towards others at recent RfA's was atrocious. He harassed others, including me that did not have the same opinion as him. Maybe K.W can come back in 10-12 months showing better, but with many restrictions, but otherwise, KW should remain blocked. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite please. His history of being plain disruptive is ridiculously long, and why he's still unblocked even more ridiculous. If he'd been a new editor, he would probably have been indefinite blocked more than a couple dozen times (Without unblock, I mean). Being a prolific editor must not come in the way of completely decimating and showing an utter disrespect for one of our pillars. No more editors running away because of incivility please. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Which editors have "run away because of incivility"? That's a cheap shot I think you'll find very hard to back up. Eric Corbett 00:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite based on the clear signs that KW has not changed and will not change. If we're going to imagine an epiphany will somehow happen in a few weeks based on a finite block, then the starting point would be two months, as the previous block for this was one month. KW has already demonstrated an ability to wait out moderately lengthy blocks and then return to the exact same pattern of behaviour. I would also support those above who have called for a RfA topic ban consecutive with the block. Not only would such a topic ban avoid the problem of his behaviour there "disenfranchising the nice people by chasing them away", but it would also assist KW in not getting blocked again, because at least half of his problems seem to start at RfAs. There was a time in 2009 and 2010 when KW participated little or not at all at RfA, and in those years there was an absence of this cycle of personal attacks and blocks for him as well. (Perhaps RfA is not just hideously broken but also has deleterious effects on participants.) In a theoretical future where KW is unblocked and contributing constructively, it would be best - for him, for everyone else, and for the encyclopedia - to keep it that way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite ~ that is with no fixed termination point but a clear intimation that it will end. That end must be precipitated by KW making a realistic and believable (i.e., not just a form of words) request which acknowledges that, if he didn't intend the outrageous implication, his words were extremely poorly chosen or, if he did he was absolutely wrong to do so. Either way, he has to refrain from such comments in the future. This WP is a two pronged project and, while KW may be brilliant at the one, presenting the knowledge of the world to the world, he certainly at times sucks at the other, working as part of a viable self-regulating community to do the first. Once he is willing to work at both, why would we leave him blocked? Cheers, LindsayHello 04:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) At the risk of being called an elitist, I think this section would be a lot shorter and a lot easier to read if people took the A in AN more seriously. I see editors with a couple of thousand edits and no specific knowledge commenting here, throwing their "votes" in the mix here, as if those comments were called for or appreciated. So I'm not surprised that some comment on a lynch mob mentality. As a reminder: this is not the court of public opinion, and AN is not experiencing a lack of opinions. Lest we forget, no matter what you think KW deserves or doesn't deserve, the fact is that he thinks he has work to do here and he has invested in our project. A decision to ban or block him indefinitely should not be taken lightly. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Presumably not taking the decision lightly is why it's useful for a very broad spectrum of the community (including, yes, people with "only" a few thousand edits!) to comment. Deciding that the consensus of the community is meaningful only when it favors decisions of which you approve, is never going to work I'm afraid. For "administrator consensus" WP:AE should be your choice of forum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Seems the two of you can't even agree on rules governing who should participate in the evaluative discussion at AN. (Maybe if there were some rules to go by it would reduce some of the chaos?! [But said chaos is a beloved part of this WP venue, right?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) AN is a community noticeboard -- even the elected elitists say so Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions. NE Ent 12:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) This particular discussion is more like a feeding frenzy (still, thank you for the link, Ent) and I suspect a couple of ulterior motives--one, the "let's jump on the editor we hate" mindset, and the other of treating AN(I) as the proverbial springboard to RfA. Demiurge, you don't know what decision I approve of. I may very well not have an opinion, and it would be courteous of you to not presume to be able to read my mind. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for that Drmies, your combination of "I suspect a couple of ulterior motives" and "it would be courteous of you to not presume to be able to read my mind" all in one paragraph really brightened up my day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Two weeks max and then impose a 2-way interaction ban with Demiurge1000 per BK. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Who is "BK" here? Black Kite has not offered any reasoning as to why an interaction ban would be justified, useful, or solve the problem that we're seeing here. Who is the other "BK" editor to whom you're referring? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I meant Black Kite, and the reason I support an IBAN between you and Kiefer would be I think rather obvious. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) It's not obvious at all. I'm just one of a number of people at whom he has chosen to direct personal attacks on more than one occasion. What that has to do with an IBAN remains unclear. He's been blocked for this multiple times when I was completely uninvolved, just as I was completely uninvolved with the RfA nonsense that started this incident off - I did not comment there at all, on either page, or even on TRM's talk page when the argument moved there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served Granted, KW's comment was quite snarky. But this grew out of KW being badgered at an RFA for an oppose that looks to me to have been intended to improve the encyclopedia. 1) Indeffing people for things they say after having been badgered, while ignoring those who badgered them, is not a good idea. 2) The block is based on something KW didn't actually say. As alf laylah wa laylah remarked above, blocking editors for things they didn't say, on the grounds that it is their fault that someone was able to misinterpret their words, is also not a great idea. 3) Many of KW's previous blocks, which are being used to justify his indeffing, also grew out his being badgered for good faith opposes at RFA. Driving a person off Wikipedia largely for making thoughtful opposes at RFAs is really not a good idea. So, if this indeffing of KW stands, it will set three troublesome precedents simultaneously. Cardamon (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Your logic doesn't hang together at all. How does KW being criticised at RfA by GiantSnowman and TRM, justify him making a comment of this nature about me, when I didn't comment at the RfA at all, and didn't even offer an opinion on his behaviour there? You seem to be making an argument for a topic ban from RfA, if what you're saying is that the mere stress of his !vote being questioned there causes him to lash out at uninvolved parties in completely different fora. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You were encouraging someone who he was currently having 'issues' with to open an RFC on him. Its naive to not expect a response. Granted the response was a bit extreme. But dont poke a badger with a stick and you wont get bitten. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) On the contrary, I was informing someone who had asked about raising an RFC that there had already been one, and advising him that another one might result in some problematic responses. Far from encouragement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (EC) Its a good thing we dont respond to people based on what we *think* they are implying rather than what they actually say then isnt it? Oh wait... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflicts) First, his comment wasn't at all justified; in this non-admin's opinion it's worth a block of a day. Maybe two days. Also, it looks like this may have grown out of the RFA. You gave advice on taking KW to process at the talk page of an editor who had clashed with KW at the RFA a few hours earlier. Then KW showed up and made a comment similar to, but milder than, the one he later got blocked for. Cardamon (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Demiurge most certainly did not egg me on; "And although I was unaware of the previous RFC/U, looking at the close, that sums up the major reason why I don't want to file one at this time - Kiefer disrupted it so much, drawing in the other parties to do the same, that nothing happened. Which is exactly what is happening at the RfA thread." is a quote of my response to him. Demiurge isn't a saint, but please, when evidence one way or another is this easy to find, use it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time Served With an admonition to keep accusations of inappropriate behavior to himself or forward to an appropriate authority (arbcom/wmf) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served + Apology, unless you start showing some consistency and block people like Demiurge and Prioryman for far worse personal attacks.Volunteer Marek 07:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) And note: from the above discussion it doesn't even look like the original block has consensus so why the hey are you asking for duration? That seems like some new fangled way of forum shopping (ask for legitimacy of a block, when it starts to look like no consensus start a new discussion about length...). Just overturn the damn thing already.Volunteer Marek 07:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I presume you are saying time served and the blocking admin should appoligize to Kiefer?--My76Strat (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I noticed the same thing. It is a manipulative argumentative technique. ("How long should the block be?" presupposes the block was/is valid in the first place, and hops over that Q. [Another: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"]) Good for you, VMarek. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You guys really need to come up for some fresh air every now and then!--My76Strat (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Actually, the question of validity was answered a couple sections above. The validity of the block has alrady been widely endorsed. Resolute 13:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) No, no it hasn't. Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek 17:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) And it's been widely criticized, too. (Too many assumptions. The process is unclear. Are you suggesting each individual editor s/b "closing crat" re that decision? What?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) It's not just a manipulative argumentative technique it's a sneaky way of falsely legitimizing a block that has no legitimacy to begin with by quickly moving the goal post while no one's paying attention. It's actually quite disruptive in fact and whoever opened this thread should be warned about using such underhanded tactics.Volunteer Marek 17:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Actually, administrators are not required to establish consensus before placing a block, particularly in egregious cases like this one. And in this instance, the blocking administrator specifically asked for community feedback on the length of the block. So the person opening the thread was acting entirely appropriately. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Marek, I am pointing to a discussion where, by my count, Horologium's block has been endorsed by a ratio greater than 3 to 1. You can pretend that this is a "no consensus" result all you want or accuse me of "making stuff up", but all that does is make you look disingenuous. Resolute 14:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 1 week We're being asked for a specific figure to replace the provisional placeholder of indefinite. To continue to say indefinite therefore doesn't answer the question. Given that the context was a discussion about an interaction ban, then it is to be expected that there will be hostile comments about editors' behaviour and motives. A duration of 1 week seems an appropriate period for tempers to cool, without us forgetting the point of the discussion. Warden (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served It was a stupid, provocative post. I'm "special" cause I appear to be the only editor here without sufficient ESP to know exactly what KW meant by the post. The mature response would have been to say Hey, that kind of reads like you're accusing an editor of being a pedophile ... is that what you really mean? Instead we get a whole lot of overreaction -- please take a healthy dose of Wikidryl -- unblock and move on. NE Ent 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served: unblock We already known there is an acrimonious dispute between Kiefer and Demiurge, that is why the interaction ban was proposed. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, just enable the interaction ban and this pointlessness goes away. Blocking such a good contributor when we can solve the issue boggles the mind, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Those above who say whenever the User provides redress and agrees not to do it again have the tenor of the discussion for the blocking admin. As to an interaction ban, no problem is "solved" by saying you have insulted your way into penalties against others, it just regularly heaps more problems upon it, and the problems become systematic rather than limited. As to RfA ban, well, it looks like that needs its own discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock Hope KW's statement below puts and end to this. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite per Demiurge1000, Kudpung and Worm That Turned. I believe that this is only necessary because if an unblock occurred, based on previous matters, Kiefer would continue with the behaviour that he showed in the comment directed at Demiurge1000. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) He retracted the specific sentence at issue. If you think there is a long term issue deal with that through an RFCU. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) There's no good reason not to deal with this here, as we have done in the past. I see no benefit from repeating this at another venue when the well-documented long term issues can be addressed here and now. The pseudo-retraction doesn't cut it for me and it doesn't prevent a reccurrence of the same types of comments and ensuing disruption. - MrX 16:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC) And that's why this whole "indefinite is not infinite" mantra is such bullshit. What happens in these 'two minutes of hate' is that the blocked user is required to humiliate themselves by "retracting" and "apologizing" and when they do that, assholes people like you come around and smirk "that's not enough humiliation for me, more please". Disgusting. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You've completely misrepresented what I said and flavored it with your own brand of 'two minutes of hate'. Do you have anything constructive to add? - MrX 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) There is a really, really good reason not to deal with this here and now. KW was indeffed for a remark. He apologized and would have struck it had he been able to, so he ought to be unblocked. The fact that a bunch of other people started throwing out examples of his other putative sins and shortcomings in random order without his being able to participate in the disorganized shouting match at all makes this an incredibly inappropriate forum for sanctioning him for anything other than the one comment for which he was blocked, if that. If there are long-term problems with KW's behavior then have an RFC/U or at least a thread here that's organized for that specific purpose and in which he can participate fully. This current process is sketchy enough given what it's actually about. If it's meant to represent a reasonable process for indeffing KW for a bunch of other reasons it's a sham and a farce. Try to maintain some dignity, for God's sake. I won't waste space asking you to have empathy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) He was indeffed for a completely over-the-line remark, one in a long history of such remarks. While I agree that this process is near-useless, I do think it is better than starting over in RFC/U. I also agree that he should be able to comment in this discussion and please don't assume that I don't have empathy for him. - MrX 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The issue is precisely that it has not been documented. Where is the collection of diffs showing a long term behaviour? Rather everyone is making big assertions with no evidence to back it up. At an RFCU the long term evidence can be laid out, and we can get closer to the truth rather than just lynching the editor over claims of long term issues. There are times when long term issues can be dealt with at AN, but they generally involve diffs of clear issues like clear POV pushing etc. I'll ignore the stupidity of thinking the comment (that lead to the block) was about sexual grooming; what if his allegation about politicking and manipulation was true? It is your opinion that we should block editors who make any sort of allegation out of hand, rather than give them the opportunity to substantiate it or retract it? Often AN/ANI are more about rhetoric and the superficial appearance of having a valid argument than substance, which is why it should be hashed out elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The only stupidity here is not recognizing the obvious innuendo, but that's not at the core of the long-term issue. And, no, I do think we should give editors a chance to retract unfortunate statements with their agreement not to keep repeating the same disruptive behaviours, again and again. If you remember, we kicked StillStanding-247 off the island for making a joke in poor taste because of how it was perceived. Let's at least be consistent. - MrX 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) No he wasn't, he was blocked for his continuous disruption and as a final straw the blocking admin interpreted his comment as a threat to violence [105]: "Massive battleground mentality, assuming bad faith, and worst of all, threatening violence. Enough is enough.". Read the actual ANI thread again: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. He was a tendentious editor. I have not heard anyone claiming that Kiefer is a tendentious editor, or in fact problematic with edits in any capacity. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Well, color me astounded that you can interpret this as an editor threatening violence at the hand of Adjwilley but you can't see how this might be interpreted as accusing another editor of paedophilia. - MrX 19:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You misread my comment. I suggest you read it again rather than constructing straw men. Let me quote ANI which I linked to, "Fully agree, there is enough other things to justify the block (such as falling off the WP:CLUETRAIN and the incivility etc), but interpreting [38] as a threat of violence isn't one of them." IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You're correct. I apologize. I misinterpreted your words. - MrX 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served (or short cooling down period) + promise to work on civility: I interpreted the blocking statement as intending sexual implications, but the statement does not make an unambiguous claim and I’m not a mind reader and neither is anyone else here. I also found Kiefer’s statements in AfD insulting to the candidate. My gut reaction is to indefinite block, but the larger goal here is to build an encyclopedia and from what I can see, this is what Kiefer does well. At any age, an indication of maturity is the ability not to react to every little thing that we interpret as a slight. Nobody is perfect here and there is usually a grain of truth in all sides of a dispute, but mature people at any age find ways of not reacting and escalating disputes. If Kiefer promises to work on this, I think he should be given another chance.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock immediately As far as I can see, the statement below from KW acknowledges that he wanted to withdraw the statement as soon as he realized it was being misinterpreted. I'm willing to AGF that he didn't mean anything sexual (and the reference to IRC does support that benign interpretation). Therefore, there really is no non-punitive reason for him to stay blocked. --regentspark (comment) 17:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Comment - I would accept an immediate unblock based on one condition: that a RFC/U is immediately filed by the unblocking admin into Kiefer's conduct generally. If people want to investigate Demiurge1000 in the same RFC/U, I wouldn't have a problem with that. And we need to have a promise from all parties that this RFC/U won't go the way of the previous one (ie, being heavily disrupted), else it'll probably end up having to go to ARBCOM. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You, or another interested editor, would need to file the RFCU because it 1. needs to be accompanied by evidence 2. the basis of the dispute needs to be certified by 2 other editors Wikipedia:RFC/U#Minimum_requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I don't see why the RFC/U couldn't be filed by the closing admin, even if they had to rope in two other editors (hypothetically, let's state Dennis closes this, files the RFC/U, along with two other admins). At the very least, the RFC/U should be filed promptly after any unblock, although I'm not sure who will do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC) If you think there should be an RFC then you should start one. Why are you trying to get other editors to do something you're evidently not willing to do yourself?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am willing to do so; however, I would rather not as I would prefer someone more experienced with Kiefer (and/or more level headed) to do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC) If you're not experienced with Kiefer then why do you think there should be an RfC/U about him?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) No evidence has been presented in this discussion for a discussion about a supposed long term issue. Pointing at someone's block log does not constitute evidence. The uninvolved admin closing this discussion would then need to collect the evidence themselves for the RFCU and then write a summary of the long term issues showing how they tried to resolve the issues. Considering this block discussion is about short term issues, it is non-trivial for an uninvolved person to file an RFCU. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The RFC/U providing detailed documentation of these issues (and a couple of others) has already been done. Years ago. In fact, my merely pointing that out to someone who was unaware of it, rose to the level of being compared to "poking a badger with a stick". Strange - RFC/U's are not much use if you can be accused of baiting just for daring to mention one's existence. The block log is all subsequent to the RFC/U. Have the issues been dealt with? No. Has any apparent attempt to deal with the issues been made? No, actually it's been getting steadily worse. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) An RFCU from several years ago is irrelevant for establishing disruption since that RFCU. The existence of a block log does not show what has occurred since. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Note to closing admin: This block is being discussed at Wikipediocracy, which may explain the current votes. 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.6.169 (talk) That is an amazing show of bad faith and explains why you posted as an IP, whoever you are. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Many of those who complain loudly about the block of Kiefer, who is in Wikipediocracy, are themselves members, like Hillbillyholiday81, Volunteer Marek, IRWolfie, et cetera. Kiefer announced his blocking discussion in Wikipediocracy, and that may obviously be changing the outcome. Don't shoot the messenger, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.6.169 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) IRWolfie isn't part of that particular groupthink, as far as I know. There are a few others who've posted here with similar views that are, but one could AGF-assume that most of them would have arrived here under their own steam anyway. That said, KW posted for support at Wikipediocracy almost immediately, and there ended up being two ongoing discussions about this, one of which he's been updating throughout the day; the other contains suggestions that my real life identity should be hunted down so that my hand "can be firmly held to the stove" (I assume that's a metaphor for something or other). Pretty much par for the course. (Last time I looked, they'd concluded I'm a sinister right-handed libertarian atheist Christian conservative communist from Wisconsin, born in 1908, employed in rocketry, and spending my leisure time badger-baiting. Or... something like that? )--Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Being a member of a free to register forum that discusses wikipedia does not imply any sort of conformity of views on this issue (or in fact any issue despite what I once thought, just browse some of the threads, there is no uniformity of views), nor does it mean someone reads all threads (many of which are very boring to me). Worm is also a member for example, yet he voted for indef. Just because someone is a member of the forum does not mean they came to the discussion that way either. I came to this discussion because I left a comment (an apology) on Kiefer's page before the incident and was reading the reply, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) An incredibly poor attempt to poison the well. In the interests of fairness and balance (for all that it matters), discussion (of sorts) has been doing the rounds on IRC - I've seen administrators being harassed over the refusal to revision delete KW's initial comment (the one that is the root cause for all of this) and there has been various attempts to influence various people to vote for an indefinite block. The issue, of course, is that both venues (Wikipediocracy and the WP IRC channels) are used by people who are perfectly entitled to have an opinion, those who use Wikipediocracy are, by and large, Wikipedia editors with the same rights and privileges every other WP editor has. Nick (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Put down the matches and step away from the pyre. Time served seems reasonable. There may be an RFC/U, but that's a different question isn't it? Intothatdarkness 19:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 1 month should be enough. Clearly we need to ban these editors from interacting with eachother or thel will get blocked again. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 3 months Last block was one month and didn't seem to do the trick, make this 3, the next 6, and so on. Either KW will realize that he needs to change the way he interacts or he won't, and if he won't then the longer blocks will eventually remove him from the community. I'm not sure why we have to get into these protracted debates anytime KW or certain other editors cross the line - just treat them like they are anyone else in the community: escalate block duration and move forward. Sædontalk 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I agree with you about the escalating blocks concept here. There are many users who believe that interpersonal disputes are somewhat different than, say, vandalism or whatnot and so shouldn't be treated the same. There's also a bit of a weird double standard where long-time users (or those with "more valuable edits") are given more leniency than new contributors. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Not really weird, quite normal actually. Makes perfect sense to tolerate more from good content writers. Happens everywhere and in every profession. Good pilots, hot shot traders, rainmakers, superstar professors, etc. are all allowed more than their fair share of eccentricities because they're good at what matters. --regentspark (comment) 23:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 3-6 months. His block log—and the ridiculous backpedaling (on the part of administrators) that accompanies almost every entry—is literally laughable. Having not seen his page since I blocked him almost a year ago, I actually did laugh when I saw it. "Indefinite" is too wishy-washy, unless you're talking infinite, which we are not. So set something concrete and stick with it. Based on the previous blocks, all of which are for the same thing, a matter of months seems reasonable. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC) What will have changed in 3–6 months? This notion of escalating punishments is quite simply absurd. Eric Corbett 02:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, don't get me wrong - I have not the slightest notion that anything will improve here. It's not about punishing him, or teaching him a lesson, since he is obviously quite beyond that. It's about lengthening the time between episodes like this that take away time from good editors. Blocks aren't for teaching people lessons, they're for preventing disruption. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 02:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Yeah, right. Eric Corbett 02:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Time served per regentspark and NE Ent. Andreas JN466 04:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock: I'd say there's essentially no option but to unblock immediately. There's no consensus on block length, whether to unblock based on time served, to block for a set period of time or to indefinitely block, some of the timed and indefinite block comments are based on apologies or behavioural modifications by Kiefer, and there has been some movement on that front already with the clarification of the comments made already, so they need to be weighted and ideally those who left the comments now need to clarify their intent. There's also an issue, from my perspective, of various parties getting involved and trying to influence the block - some wanting an indefinite block on IRC, others wanting Kiefer unblocked straight away. I don't believe any user, even one with Kiefer's block log, should expect to be unfairly treated based on external factors weighing on the discussion, so the fairest thing to do is to unblock. I would also say, I'm rather disappointed at the extent Demiurge has become involved in the discussion, Demiurge having replied to those commenting here 12 times, largely in defence of the indefinite block proposal. I consider that sort of involvement unhelpful and inappropriate given the involvement and long history of conflict between Kiefer and Demiurge, it would have been better if Demiurge had sat back, perhaps made a statement and allowed the discussion to evolve naturally, rather than replying to each and every comment he appears to dislike. I would also really like to see any evidence Kiefer can produce about problematic on-wiki behaviour and whether there is any issues of young and/or inexperienced editors being recruited as meatpuppets/cronies or whatever you (within the bounds of taste and decency) would call them. Nick (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC) One month seems reasonable. I agree with e.g. Blackmane (WP:AN#A_fundamental_breakdown) in that I do not think the offending comment can reasonably be interpreted as not deliberately offensive. It Is Me Here t / c 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Time Served per NE Ent, Cardamon, I am One of Many and others who have expressed concern that an editor has been blocked not for what he wrote but for his opponents’ questionable interpretation of what he wrote. I’m also dismayed by the zeal of certain parties here who are personally involved and have badgered, with repeated posts, those users who rejected as unconvincing their arguments for an indefinite block.Tristan noir (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite. I note the "Statement by KW" below in which he again accuses Demiurge1000 of "manipulating inexperienced persons ... young men, perhaps boys", which is simply a more subtle way of repeating the insinuations of paedophilia that he made earlier. Add to that what he is up to currently on Wikipediocracy, and it's obvious that he's engaged in a campaign against Demiurge1000. I really don't think we need this kind of person here. He clearly has no regrets whatsoever about his abusive behaviour towards Demiurge1000 and is, if anything, escalating it off-wiki. Prioryman (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Statement by KW copied from the editor's talk page I have stated my concern with a long-term mostly low-intensity conflict in which high-intensity conflicts happen, often because Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors. Because of WP demographics and because of the obvious, such naive editors tend to be young men, perhaps boys. When somebody complained about the sentence, I first clarified my intention and asked that somebody strike it for me, because I had been immediately blocked and could not remove it myself. Evidence or retraction requested KW's statement above contains the text "Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors". I'd been led to believe that making accusations about other editors without providing evidence, is unacceptable. So, where's the evidence? (And I don't just mean "you posted a notification on another editor's talk page and that editor happened to be under the age of 25", or "you gave a barnstar to someone after an argument". I mean actual evidence to categorically support what's being alleged.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC) KW is the one who made the statement. You should perhaps make the request on his talk page since he can't reply here. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) He is indeed the one who made the statement, so he should have provided his evidence when doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Question 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. Some editors are offering the IVote Indefinite. Does this mean a Site-Ban by the community, or does this mean to keep him hanging until some unspecified criterion is met? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You've been here how long and don't know the diff between a block and a ban?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Who said the criterion was unspecified? I specified one above "until such time that KW shows understanding that these sort of accusations are unacceptable". Dennis Brown mentioned an "epiphany". There are many comments from KW that would lead me to supporting his unblock, but at the moment he's making things worse for himself - I don't believe that a time-limited block will change his attitude, but when his attitude changes he should be unblocked. WormTT(talk) 11:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) A ban is a policy decision. A block is a technical action which can be used to enforce a ban. When editors argue for an indefinite block, they may be using terminology loosely and asking for a ban, or they may be asking for an unspecified block until he apologizes. The former is clear enough as to intent, even if a sloppy use of terminology. My question about an indefinite block until he apologizes or has an "epiphany" is that he has apologized in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Under no circumstance should any of this be taken as even considering a site ban. A ban discussion would be wholly inappropriate. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Banning policy, and WP:INDEF. Blocking should not be confused with banning, a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, are likely to be blocked to enforce the ban.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User Talk page protected 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 combative discussions continued on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz so I've given it a days full protection. I've had a couple of requests to unprotect at User talk:Salix alba#KW talk page and Kiefer has emailed for it to be unprotected. I'm inclined to let to protection run its course, but if any admin want to change it that fine.--Salix (talk): 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC) For the record, I support this action. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not opposed to your administrative decision, just curious as to why you protected the page instead of revoking his access to it? Technical 13 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Um, so that other people don't continue the argument while he stands around helplessly unable to respond. T13 - you were asked to self-impose an AN/ANI topic-ban ... this question could have been asked directly to the protector (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Partially also so that I didn't have to change the main block. I didn't want an indefinite block on the talk page just a short one to diffuse the situation. You can't have different part of a block running for different times.--Salix (talk): 12:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) BWilkins is exactly correct. It was the best possible solution in a situation with no good options. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) KW does not have email enabled...if he's blocked can he still enable it? Just asking since I don't know...and since his talkpage is protected.--MONGO 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I believe that preferences are not affected by a block. We don't know when he disabled email, but I don't think it has always been disabled. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I have revdel'd KW's original comment. Regardless of what it explicitly said, consensus is fairly clear that it contained a deliberate implication by Kiefer. If any admin disagrees with this, feel free to revert it; I won't take offence. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure it was required. I maintain the primary issue was intentionally crafting the words to be easily misunderstood for the purpose of causing drama, rather than the words themselves. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I agree, and I very strongly object to the revdel of all edits made to the page between 20:39 UTC yesterday and 17:05 UTC today, inclusive. This revdel even removed postings to completely different top-level sections of WP:AN, as well as many posts in which members of the community expressed their views on the duration of the ban and suggestions concerning a proposed topic ban from RfA. --Stfg (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC) All of those posts have been restored, with the comment from KW excised. Nothing else is missing, but to revdel an older post, all subsequent edits have to be briefly removed as well. Horologium (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Ah, I see, thanks. The diffs still cannot be obtained from the history file, nor from editors' contributions pages. I do object to what has been done, and wasn't it wheel warring? --Stfg (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Based on my familiarity with Basalisk, I don't think it was wheel warring, just misplaced enthusiasm. I have no issue with the comment being removed from the page, but I think they should all be in the edit history, as they don't fit the criteria to RevDel. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Would you care to undo it then Dennis Brown? Prodego talk 18:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It looks like Horologium said he already has. Wheel warring requires intent, and this is just a mix up, no one is trying to step on anyone, no need for feathers to get ruffled here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)When I read KW original post, it set my mind racing about Demiurge's conduct on IRC. I realised that that's not ok, as what KW said was baseless. We shouldn't leave those kinds of posts lying around to place suggestive images in people's minds. Stfg - thanks for raising it on my talk page. I didn't realise the post had already been removed and restored, and wouldn't have removed it again had I realised. I skimmed through the discussion here and in all fairness the only mention of it was from Darkness Shines. I meant what I said in my previous post - I did this because I felt it was the right thing to do, but if someone thinks this is a bad decision then go ahead and revert it; it's relatively easy to undo. I won't mind. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Well, I disagree with the revdel, too, and I'll undo it, if there are no strong objections. There's nothing explicitly requiring revdel in the edits, and given that KW was blocked for what boils down to his choice of words (intentional or otherwise), it doesn't seem fair to him to remove them from public view, where they can't be accurately judged. (FWIW, Horologium appears to have restored parts of the removed text but nto actually undone the revdel.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Trout, self-served by db Ok, part of this was my fault and I may have given Basalisk some bad info in an email. But it is just a misunderstanding, of which I will share in the blame. Writ, if you will do the honors (I've never UNrevdel'ed before) I would be in your debt. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) That isn't true, Dennis didn't offer me bad info. I simply didn't know about the previous discussion, which was my oversight. I've apologised to Prodego. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Well, I should have caught it in the email and I didn't, so that is my fault. Too many distractions at work today and the internet isn't working right and a technician is on the way. Had I caught that, this wouldn't have happened. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Okay, the edit history is restored. I've left the comments redacted in the live version of the page (without prejudice as to whether they should be restored on the live page, too), as I don't feel as strongly about that as I did the revdel; his comments can be seen in the edit history at least. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks everyone. Basalisk, I apologise for rasing wheel warring. I skimmed WP:WW, but didn't grok that it requires intent. I've never doubted your good intent. --Stfg (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:Eric Corbett 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 find you to be an exceedingly obnoxious and offensive prick..."[106] "Which only goes to demonstrate that you're a malevolent idiot."[107] "Please don't try taking the piss. Unlike you I have a degree in psychology."[108] Is this his attempt at humour? Other editors really shouldn't have to accept a constant undercurrent of incivility from a small group of editors just to try to improve Wikipedia. I think he's trying to make a case for User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz by being even more incivil and by lodging new personal attacks to distract from the original... user:j (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Are you certain you've been thinking at all? Eric Corbett 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I think enough drama has happened for one day. Eric, that wasn't your best phraseology at work, even if tempers are running high. I suggest we move along and not make this any larger than it needs to be. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I get really pissed off with these childish reports to mommy because someone said something I don't like. It's about time WP grew up. Eric Corbett 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I have no idea what Eric Corbett's age is, but it is about time that you, Eric, grew up. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC) So you have no idea what you're talking about then. QED. Eric Corbett 01:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) This is what I'm talking about, tempers are high, everyone needs to just go edit articles or have a tea. There is more context than meets the eye here, and jockeying for the last word isn't helping. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Witless comments of this sort are typical of the kind of people who want to be friends of bullies because they like and envy the power that bullies have: enfeebled attempts to do the same thing that amount to little more than a kid saying "you smell". KW's history of personal attacks eptomised clever and witty bullying of the kind designed to belittle and humiliate others, all the more obnoxious because it was so skillful. The repeated sarcastic remarks of this editor combined with the desperate desire to assert claims to intellectual authority represent the problem that emerges when editors like KW's acquire cheer-leaders. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I've moved Paul B's comment to its chronological position, as its previous insertion made it appear that Dennis's comment was a reply to Paul rather than to Eric. --Stfg (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Your username is a letter. Your argument is invalid.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) And it's not even a vowel, for cryin' out loud... pft! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Comment on the edits, not the editor's username! :P Seriously, though, I appreciate the levity, but there's an editor having a meltdown, calling other editors "pricks" and "idiots." And his response to this thread makes it clear he doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with that behaviour. user:j (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC) There is a lot of background which makes this different from standard "that editor was uncivil" cases. No one is going to be sanctioned for the above diffs, and so long as there is no provocation there will be no unpleasant commentary. There is no meltdown. This is an admin noticeboard and plenty of people have noticed this thread and would comment if they felt it would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Comment: I suggest this section be hatted. It's not about KW, and if anyone has any gripes with Eric they should take it elsewhere - otherwise this is just creating diversion and more stupid drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I've fixed the problem of it being a subsection. And I agree with J (The Devil's Advocate's attempts to divert the discussion notwithstanding) that those comments are extremely inappropriate. The sad thing is, if he made those comments in real life, Eric would have long since been kicked out of his job or out of any sort of organization. SilverserenC 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Why Malleus was granted a user name changein an effort to clear his block log is beyond me, and why people tolerate him is also beyond me. What's it going to take to get him to be blocked and actually stay blocked? It really doesn't matter what a wonderful content contributor he is: his demeanour should have resulted in a ban years ago, and the change in username has done nothing to clean it up.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Kww, suggesting that MF got a new name to hide his block log is...well, let me not say what I think of it. Why he changed user names is a matter of record, and what you're doing is insinuating, and I thought that you would be above that. The kind of passive-aggressive BS civility complaining we see all over the current page is far more destructive to the project than Malleus/Eric's incivility. I don't think his commentary in the section above is very helpful, but your dramatizing (and SilverSeren's) is even less helpful. Do you want to know why I tolerate him, and why I think that he's an asset to the project? Because, in the end, we should be producing well-written and well-researched material. The rest is secondary. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Apparently actually changed to using his real name. I agree that deportment is secondary, but there's a big difference between secondary and inconsequential.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) When his cost to the wiki is a number of people leaving the project, I think it outweighs any amount of material he could produce. SilverserenC 05:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You'd better start targetting me, then, Silver. I suspect that a lot of people have left due to things I have said or done. Or, instead, you could start thinking in terms of net positives. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I don't think there are any net positives when an editor is making the editing environment toxic for everyone else. SilverserenC 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Eric's intentions at Wikipedia are not up for discussion here and this subsection is out of order. One more comment and I'll hat it and start throwing some warnings around for disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) That's why I tried making it an actual section and not a sub-section, so it could be a separate discussion. Why are his personal attacks not up for discussion? SilverserenC 07:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Because no admin will block him based on civility anymore (despite it still being a pillar) because they know another admin will come and undo it in 5 minutes time. Its a waste of everyone's time and effort discussing it, so the best option is just for everyone to shut up and let him curse and call people names all he wants. Blah blah content creator blah blah special flower blah. The best option is to either ignore him, unless you have to work with him, in which case bear in mind he will be able to call you all the names under the sun but you cannot respond. With the implication you probably deserve it and should just grow a thicker skin. This is the state we are currently at. I will add the Kudpungs comments above are part of the reason why the general impression is that Eric enjoys special protection. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Bowing down to the unblockables isn't the proper response. SilverserenC 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Seren, the man said drop it.Volunteer Marek 08:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC) No. And nice to see you too, Marek. SilverserenC 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I could consider myself a victim of Eric's attacks, but I don't. This whole sordid affair has got tempers running high on all sides, and unfortunately Eric is one of those who hasn't held it. I don't hold any grudges, and I know they're a very good editor from what I've seen with the Sunbeam Tiger article. I've clearly overstepped the mark at times in the RfA, as most of us on that talk page did. I suggest this particular section is closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:25, 5 June 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. Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring. Please support new policy proposal. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A bored spotlight-seeker trolling for attention with ambiguous wording is blocked and there's a gratifying storm of response. This whole thread about one of our favourite incivility stars covers 67% of the Administrators' noticeboard right now, by my simple measurement. (It's 34,5 screenfuls on my good big monitor.) Meanwhile in another part of the galaxy (ANI), there's a dry-as-dust attempt to defend the integrity of Wikipedia articles by topic-banning a long-running manifestation of a self-promoting sock/meat-puppeteer. Old arbitration case about it is here, ANI thread about the topic ban here, with its currently three comments (which is about — starting to count — losing my place — oh — it's currently about one fiftieth of the number of comments made above on the block length alone), which is hardly enough for a topic ban, at least I don't think it would be proper to institute a ban on such a "consensus". The contrast got me thinking about making "Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring" policy, as it already is our practice, and I'm just floating it here in the hope of a good start-up discussion before I create the RFC. Proposal: "Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring" should be policy. Please comment below, stating: a) Support, b) Oppose, c) No, just stick it in MastCell's Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia, d) Why is Wikipedia is an MMORPG tagged as {{humor}}? e) No, I think I'll just go contribute to the ANI topic ban discussion, f) other. (Don't in any case bother to tell me it's moot because topic bans ought to be posted on AN in the first place, not ANI. So they ought, but sometimes, as in the sock/meat-puppet case, they arise from an ANI discussion and stay there. And we all know ANI, other things being equal, gets more attention than AN anyway.) Bishonen | talk 10:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC). a) Support — Ched :  ?  11:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC) ... Second First choice h) Bright Blue .. :) — Ched :  ?  15:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC) g) Purple. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC) ? I thought this was already policy. You mean it's actually not policy? We must rectify this oversight at once! Oh...and green. Intothatdarkness 13:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Good points, but I think the more serious analysis here would be along the lines of "civility blocks/disputes are easy to understand (if sometimes hard to resolve) and hence everyone has an opinion; article integrity blocks are much more complicated and there are fewer people with the inclination or time to roll up their sleeves and sort through the history." In general, as is reflected not just on AN/ANI but on XfD pages as well, there is often depressingly little correlation between the importance of an issue and the amount of collective community time and effort spent evaluating the issue. This is a flaw in our processes, but I have no idea how to fix it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) It is a flaw in human behaviour more than anything. People gravitate towards personalities - good or bad - and the level of discussion of them will naturally increase as a result. The flaw in process is that the result of this is an often paralyzed community that becomes unable to enforce its own standards because the editors who become time sinks often attract enough like-minded support to evade any meaningful sanction. Such enablers, in turn, empower eachother behave even worse. Resolute 14:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC) It's actually not that simple, although it's tempting to believe it's so. There is also a cycle of baiting, passive-aggressive POV pushing, and policy OWN ensuring that in many cases those who instigate things are able to slink away in the resulting building of pyres. Humans, especially in a collective, relatively closed environment, will seek the "easy answer," and it's far easier to attack someone who curses rather than the person or behavior that caused or provoked the cursing. It's easier to brand those who disagree with terms such as "like-minded support" (thus lumping them into the same supposedly disruptive category) than it is to sort through the entire picture. Intothatdarkness 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The lowest hanging fruit is always the sweetest and everyone loves a good old-fashioned mob. Why waste time digging for answers when you get just as many bonus points for looking right? As for fixing it, sometimes I feel like we are drilling holes in the bottom of a sinking boat, to allow the water to drain out. [109] Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I mentioned to someone yesterday (perhaps in email) that I often felt like I was trying to bail water out of the Titanic with a thimble; great minds? — Ched :  ?  14:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) [ec]It's always incredibly difficult to fix culture, especially when many of the people who would need to do the fixing are so vested in the existing culture that they either see no reason to change it or feel threatened by any attempt to change it. Maybe they should just drop the anchor through the bottom of the boat to stop the forward motion...;-) Intothatdarkness 14:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Interim comment: I was hoping alternative e), "I think I'll just go contribute to the ANI topic ban discussion", would attract a lot of support, but it doesn't seem popular so far. (Though thank you, Dennis.) But perhaps people, such as for example you, Brad, are even as we speak rolling up your sleeves and sorting through the history, HINT HINT? Actually the history's a doddle; the worst part is having to read (Gosh, that sounds painful! I meant glance through!) through a dull old arbcom case from 2005. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC). I didn't want to read all the material (so many words!), so I just added a me too vote, you know, to be popular and jack up the vote total. </joke>. And for those too lazy to watch the whole video I linked, starting at 5:11 gets the job done[110]. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Civility blocks are ridiculous, but that was a personal-attack-with-foul-innuendo block. Well different. --Stfg (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The problem that I think Bishonen brings up is that our incentive system is counterproductive. For people who thrive on interpersonal bickering, Wikipedia is like a crack house smorgasbord of constant oversupply and reinforcement. So we've accumulated an ever-increasing population of editors who thrive on and perpetuate interpersonal disputes. On the other hand, trying to resolve a content dispute is incredibly time-consuming, frustrating, and unrewarding, since our current system gives filibuster power to anyone with an Internet connection and an obsessive pet belief. So over time we've lost the people who provided sane, reasonable, encyclopedia-focused input into content disputes. If we want this unfortunate dynamic to change, then we need to change our incentive system. MastCell Talk 17:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The 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 a few good admins

It's that ole pain in the ass Beeblebrox with his giant policy RFCs again, looking for some volunteers to get on board to administrate and eventually close Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC, which has just opened. Potential benefits include harassment, trolling, and the near certainty that no matter how you close it you will be accused of some sort of wrongdoing. Sounds great, right?

Actually I'm not sure this one will be so bad, its bound to be a cakewalk compared to the pending changes rfcs. I need somewhere between two and four admins or other experienced users to keep things under control and determine where consensus has led us when it is all over. I'd like to get that locked in now while we are still pretty early in the process, it's only been open for about a half an hour. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to be a part of the conclusion of this RfC if you're not opposed to me wanting to help. Technical 13 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You voted in the RFC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I did vote after I made this offer, but am not participating in any discussions or really arguing for any of the possible outcomes as I really don't care. If that vote excludes me from helping tally up and determine the consensus, that is not a big deal to me and I have no problem being excluded from that task. As a side note, there seems to be too many options available and it is heavily diluting the voting pool and consensus may be difficult to pull out of it. I believe it is going to end up being that two or three options will be left standing out of the eight ten options and will those will need a second RfC to allow the people who supported one of the other seven or eight to refine their position. I know that is probably blatantly obvious to some, but sometimes seeing the obvious spelled out is useful. Technical 13 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am not an admin, but I do consider myself part of the "experienced users" group. I also have absolutely no predisposition towards any outcome, as the ref desk isn't an area I've ever spent any time at. I have experience doing difficult closes over at Wikidata (or at least, as difficult as they get over there), and I'd be willing to be a closer here. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help close but not moderate. I have experience doing this - I was one of the three closers of the Muhammad images RfC and am assigned to close the Jerusalem RfC. I don't have any strong opinions about the refdesk or any other COI. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• So far the only proposal getting significant support is "status quo", so this might not actually be all that difficult to close :-). Looie496 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If I don't participate, I'll help out. Can't be as bad as the last one I closed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well finding volunteers certainly isn't seeming as hard as it has sometimes been in the past. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to pick and choose who does what myself, if you all want to organize a team of closers that would be great, but it might be good to have at least one person willing to keep an eye on the rfc and the talk page while it is underway as there is already some personal acrimony seen there. (and of course me and my motivations are being attacked, but I fully expected that so don't worry about it.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• per consensus: "good admins" = "do not exist". — Ched :  ?  21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps you are a figment of my imagination; and many others as well.--My76Strat (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am not an admin, and not sure if I'd be considered qualified to help either. But if I am, I'll indeed be happy to. Leave me a message on my talk, if you want me to. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I can help if need be. For my sins. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Akuri repeated unblock request

• Akuri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Background. This user has made very few content edits and has been blocked by NuclearWarfare, with the block confirmed by AGK. Previous IP ranges were blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Timotheus Canens. Salvio Giuliano has also commented on the account. The editing is similar to the arbcom-blocked accounts Zeromus1 and Mors Martell, both of which have too many on-wiki similarities with the editing of the site-banned user Captain Occam and his friends. The concentration on wiki-litigation and engaging with previously unknown administrators, often targets of Captain Occam, indicate that Akuri is another account like Zeromus1 and Mors Martell. There have been many inconsistencies in his explanations of why he has edited using VPNs, webhosting services and open proxies, but Zeromus1 and Mors Martell were no different. His cumulative edits share many characteristics, including familiarity with arcane wikipedia processes and a back knowledge of history stretching back to 2010. He has engaged in gamesmanship and a single purpose pursuit of wiki-litigation of exactly the same kind as Captain Occam, his friends and enablers.

Unblock request. Akuri has made yet another unblock request. In that request he has engaged in the same type of checkuser-related wikilawyering that Ferahgo the Assassin attempted during the WP:ARBR&I review in April-May 2012. There she tried to wikilawyer based on an edit of Captain Occam to his user talk page. Now Akuri is trying to use recent edits by Captain Occam for similar purposes to wikilawyer against the judgement of checkusers/arbitrators. I added a brief comment after Akuri's unblock request (as I did following similar requests by Echigo mole socks), but Akuri, in full wikilawyering mode, decided to ban me from his talk page. As a suspected sockpuppet or meatpuppet his account is clearly not in "good standing." On his talk page he has invented unsupported claims of pre-existing disputes just as Captain Occam, his friends and enablers did. From the moment it was registered, Akuri's account has been disruption-only. If as before his unblock request is declined, please could his talk page access also be revoked? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've declined the unblock on procedural grounds, the basis for the request is invalid. We don't use Checkuser processes for that purpose. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • NW has commented about the block.[111] Mathsci (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I've entered this as an outsider, but it is blindly obvious to anyone who actually looks. Talk page access revoked. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      • You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment Thanks for dealing with this. Mathsci (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Question on barnstar

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.

---

what kind of a barnstar is this? do we have sarcastic barnstars now?

I realize this note may get me another award of this barnstar. glad you guys have so much time for this. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

		Unintentional Humor Barnstar

According to the image page:

The Barnstar of Humor may be awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be.

Prodego ^talk 20:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you weren't offended by this! I certainly didn't mean it sarcastically. I was in the process of replying to your original question to see if you really meant it, and then when I saw you had removed it (with the edit summary "yow") it really made me laugh. The irony was awesome, and I assumed you meant it to be funny. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

oh ok. understood. ok, thanks for your note. that clears things up a bit. well, I was a bit unsure about that illusion. didn't want to start a whole thing over it. thanks for the laugh!!! :-) --Sm8900 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 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.

AIV bots down

Just a quick note for admins: if you are going to be working on the WP:AIV queue, please note that the AIV helper bots seem to be down. Please remove blocked/resolved reports from AIV by hand. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they're back :D Legoktm (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:NOTTRUTH Talk:Sega_Genesis#WP:BURDEN_and_the_FAQ

Currently the Talk:Sega_Genesis page has an FAQ relating the articles name, which - in my opinion - contains unverified statements. Given the article's name is now the subject of a large discussion and RfC, I feel the problems in the FAQ need to be addressed in order to prevent stifling debate or unduly influencing editors decisions with misleading information presented as fact. Therefore I have started a section on the talk page geared towards finding verification for these statements or removing them and have come up against a level of confusion regarding WP:BURDEN where some editors are insisting the onus is on me to find evidence these claims are false, rather than on them to provide evidence the claims are true. From what I can tell this isn't how WP:BURDEN works, as it clearly states:

"Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

(Emphasis in the original.)

I've pointed this out to the editors involved but the reply was:

"Your misunderstanding of this policy lies in this statement: "The burden ... lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That is meant to apply to new concepts as well as new prose. And when applied to this consensus discussion, the "added material" is the claim that parts of the FAQ are incorrect and should not be used to justify prior consensus. The fact that a consensus exists, no matter how flawed it might be, places the burden on YOU to convince everyone else to change it. You cannot retroactively expect the people who established that consensus to prove it - it's been there for several years and you are now the one to whom WP:BURDEN applies."

Which I feel is completely contradictory from what WP:BURDEN actually states.

The discussion in question: Talk:Sega_Genesis#WP:BURDEN_and_the_FAQ

Clarification from non-involved admins on this matter, one way or the other would be greatly appreciated. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not familiar with the article, and so I took a couple minutes to look at the situation. It turns out that complaint here is not about the article, it is about an "FAQ" on the talk page about why the article has the title that it has. Apparently the title has been a longrunning point of dispute. Here is my opinion as an uninvolved admin:

• WP:V applies to article content. It does not apply to talk page content (although e.g. WP:BLP does apply everywhere). The talk page FAQ is free to summarize the discussions that have already happened. If you think the summary is incorrect or should be edited, that is open for discussion. However, WP:V is not a tool to change a talk page FAQ.
• If you wish to request the page be moved to a different title, please comment in the RFC that is already open on the talk page. If consensus is established to move the article, an administrator will move it.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, fair enough. What would be the proper course of action to prevent the FAQ from including misleading and non-verified statements? I have no issue with the FAQ summarising consensus at the time, regardless of my opinion of that consensus, the issue is the FAQ also includes statements made as though they are facts, when no evidence for this is available. I feel some editors may be reluctant to accept any change to the FAQ as the unverified statements support their position on the naming dispute. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

These "FAQ" sections are not particularly common, so there is not much policy about them. The best advice I have is to develop consensus on the talk page. It may help to focus on a specific point where you feel you can give the most convincing argument. I do see your point that it can be hard to do this at the same time the RFC is open. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin locations

Is there a list anywhere of admins on en.wp by self-declared location? I'm curious about what the distribution is for those who have said where they are. — Scott • talk 10:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't think so, wouldn't be hard to create one if you wanted me to. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen one before, it would be interesting to look at! ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this a matter for WT:AN? I know there was a similar discussion there recently re:political affiliations. GiantSnowman 11:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well at any rate, keep a look at User:Moe Epsilon/Administrators by location as I populate it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

One reason it'd be useful to know this is because we really could do with a few more admins who are active during 3am-7am GMT, especially on IRC. If we could work out where we are lacking in terms of time zone distribution, we might be able to strategically target some potential admin hopefuls to ensure full timezone availability. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The closest thing that I'm aware of is WP:HAU. However, this list isn't a large population of users nor is it exclusive to admins. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I love pages that don't even give a description of how they work. Perhaps we should put webcams in the bedrooms of all admins to find out if they're sleeping, regardless of which time zone they live in. Even that wouldn't be foolproof as I know a few admins who would no doubt feign sleep to avoid having to use their tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we at all worried about the potential converse of this? Do we really want every long-term abuser to have a detailed list of when admins are in short supply? (I know the stewards specifically refused to compile a list of their timezones for this very reason.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Users/administrators aren't forced to disclose any information about themselves. Anything on here is already on-wiki information, which is already displayed right on their userpage. Most of them are already categorized into Category:Wikipedians from _______. I don't see the harm in getting names of willing admins into one place. Potential abuse of something benign shouldn't discourage us from doing things anymore. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh PinkAmpersand, the time zone I am in does not really reflect when I am active in :) Also as Moe said, the infomation is all there already, I see no real issue with the list. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 23:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've been meaning to ask for a while, guess this is as good as any place to do so -- I don't want flashy userboxes, but I wouldn't mind populating categories. Is there any reason not to manually add categories to my userpage that would normally be applied by a userbox? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, proper categories are just fine, same as they are for anyone else. For instance, I've manually added Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks to my page previously. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That reminds me, Addshore suggested I create and add myself to Category:Wikipedia Administrators whose first action was to block themselves... hehe. In any case, thanks for the reply, I'll categorize myself at some point. *adds it to evergrowing To-Do list* :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• FWIW, as stated on my user page, I'm in Thailand, almost at around a 12 hr time shift between here and most of the USA time zones. This helps me cover a lot of Asia and the Pacific Rim. There is a table somewhere (voluntarily subscribed) of where admins are but I can't for the life of me remember where it is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is just a general reply so everyone is clear of my intentions. With the list I started linked above, it will be entirely voluntary where you end up on the list. You can choose to be as undefined as a continent, as specific as a city and anywhere in between (please, no citizens of Earth/extra-terrestrial humor). You can also choose to opt out of providing anything and be listed as the bottom of the list. Feel free to edit your own entry as you change locations or opt out at the bottom. Ideally, we shouldn't be changing locations based on one-off diffs. If their current location changes, it should be provided by the admin themselves, or directly stated on their userpage. Right now I'm providing the current locations of admins based solely on their userpage information. Anyone who doesn't specify a specific place where they currently are or provide multiple locations, I've put at the bottom under opted out, and you can choose to pick a location if you like. I'll post this on the list too so those who navigate over there can read it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Tabarez

I reported a personal attack of a user here. Apparently it's now archived. What does it means? What should I do now? None of the admins answered me here.Farhikht (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You were both given some advice and the thread disappeared. Did you expect a block or something? Has the situation continued/been repeated? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't expect a block. But I think that a clear warning is necessary for him.Farhikht (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Any time a translation from Persian to English is required in order to view the personal attack, we are just asking for mistakes to happen at an administrative level, and relying on Google translate would be a fool's game here. As he was warned, I suggest waiting to see if that previous warning gets the desired result. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As I know he was warned multiple times for other issues, not for this one. I insist because he didn't apologize.Farhikht (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Is a forced and insincere apology going to solve anything? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Then is there any other option? He wasn't even warned for his insult.Farhikht (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I reported a COI issue regarding this user's activity which stayed unanswered as you see here.Farhikht (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with that requires an editor or admin that speaks Persian, a rarity at the English Wikipedia. As I pointed out, we can't rely on Google Translator. I'm not sure how to help here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem was that his English was not good enough and I thought that maybe because of that he ignores warnings. So I spoke to him in Persian.Farhikht (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless my Farsi is way off base, I don't see an insult. I'm rusty, but it looks he's saying "you're right", not "you're stupid". At any rate, this is why you should speak English on the English Wikipedia. It's in the past. There may be other issues, such as COI or something, but the insult (if there even was one) is over and has not been repeated. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a native in Farsi and it's clearly an insult. Why I should complain about someone who is saying that I'm right?! This is my first complain about an autoconfirmed user since I'm -or try to be- tolerant.Farhikht (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, just go with my last sentence. Be tolerant, get past it, and speak English from now on. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. And thanks to both of you for spending time on this.Farhikht (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've poked a Farsi speaker (over on meta ) to come take a look at this. He's part of the OTRS over there, so it shows he's a trusted user, at the very least.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If the discussion is over this edit, I believe this warrant at least a warning, users tone is way out of Wiki etiquette Mardetanha ^talk 17:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to get silly. A lot has happened since that edit, including Tabarez and Farhikht both being blocked for edit warring. There has been plenty of discussion on Tabarez's talk page, which he has chosen to blank (as is his right). There’s no point in a vindictive warning a week after the fact. Besides that, anyone could have warned him at the time. Warnings from admins don’t have any special powers. If he has said something similar today, feel free to warn him. If not, get over it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, Mardetanha is the OTRS member I poked from Meta, he's a native Farsi speaker.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I got that (and I believe Farhikht anyway - as I said, my Farsi is very rusty, so I trust him), but I just don't know what anyone is expected to do. It's not an admin matter. Farhikht seems to be looking for "an eye for an eye" but he's not going to get that here, especially not after more than a week has gone by. Thousands of slights like this go unanswered every day. I agree that there are pressing issues with these users and those articles, but this is not one of them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For me that block story was very unfair since I was blocked when I requested a page protection because Tabarez started an edit war, I reverted his edits then he reverted mine, I left and I post a request at RPP to protect the page, and the last version wasn't mine. Some hours later when I came back to WP I saw that Bbb23 has blocked me. Nothing more has happened after that edit. Anyway, I don't expect a block, but Tabarez must learn how to treat others here. By the way, I understand that this is not an admin matter. And the fact that both of my requests (COI and this one) went unanswered and being blocked at the same time is a little disappointing.Farhikht (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your disappointment. Unfortunately, these things happen all the time. Next time it happens, feel free to come directly to me.

For what it's worth, I'm willing to take a closer look at the COI issues at those articles. But it's a lot to look at, and I won't have time to get into it until next week. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, thanks again.Farhikht (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

HAZLOC

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 to have the talk page history of HAZLOC restored after a recent move/revert. I am not asking for intervention regarding the move or my revert at this time; we need to attempt to resolve the conflict through discussion before asking for intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:HAZLOC has no history, and Talk:Electrical equipment in hazardous areas has no deleted revisions. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I had assumed that when the other user had merge tagged it he had opened up a discussion about the merger on the article talk page. You can close this as being resolved; as I said, we need to discuss this merge and seek consensus before doing anything else. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 8 June 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.

Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian

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.

---

was salted last year on grounds of G10 and G4. However, the category itself has 26 members. I don't see the purpose of half-deleting it, so are we deleting it - in which case getting rid of its member alphabet - or are we keeping it and thus creating it? And is there a quicker way of notifying all 26 members?--Launchballer 09:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That was a regrettable episode which generated a lot of heat and very little light, and the best thing to do about it now is nothing. Don't stir it up. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 9 June 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.

Using Help me, blocked users and proxy editing

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 keen editor is blocked for a month. They make unblock requests, rejected twice. They also continue to use their talk (about 40 edits in two weeks) to solicit other editors to make edits at their suggestion. These edits are numerous and wide-ranging, it's not just "tidying up an old issue", "avoiding going rudely silent in mid discussion" or somesuch. They have now taken to using the {{help me}} template to actively solicit other editors to do their bidding.

Is this reasonable behaviour for an editor sitting out a month's block?

No names (I'll post that tonight) as the editor concerned is well-known and their name itself could polarise opinions. An objective comment on this behaviour would be useful first. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested to someone else recently, this kind of discussion should be held to relate to the talkpage and blocking policies (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this no names thing because you can't be bothered to notify them? Lazy bugger.
Anyway, I do seem to remember when I was up to those sorts of antics I got about as far as the fourth template if I was lucky before the talk page was salted. I recommend blocking their talk page access immediately.--Launchballer 10:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also unsettled by the use of talk page stalkers (and others via use of a template once stalkers dry up) to de facto circumvent a block. It's time for this to stop, enforcement by removal of talk page access if necessary. Blocked means blocked. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've not notified them because I don't want overspill from there arriving here to bias comment on this general principle. Also I "haven't mentioned them at WP:AN" yet. I haven't commented on their talk: (their last comment there was a doozy of self-deluding cluelessness), so that it's not obvious from my own history to whom I refer. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain how requesting productive edits is bad for the encyclopedia? Last time I checked, you're trying to put in place a rule that's designed to prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia; such a rule has always been against policy. Of course, if the edits they're requesting are not productive, that's a completely different situation, but your description makes it sound as if you wouldn't object to the editor making these changes before the time when the block was imposed. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would note that we are incredibly uneven in enforcing the limitation on proxy editing. I'm happy to enforce whatever the community thinks is proper in regards to proxy editing, but policy seems vague and each case seems to be handled ad hoc. This is less than fair and less than optimal. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're a "productive editor", then why did they get blocked in the first place? We also have a policy against sockpuppeting, I wouldn't like to see that suspended because "it was only being used for productive edits" either. Editors with 1 month blocks are a mixed lot: not 24 hrs, nor indef as incorrigible. Clearly a 1 month means that they have some positive contribution, yet also some serious incompatibility with activity here. I've made proxy edits for other editors myself - even long-banned sockers, where I've (per policy) seen this as an objectively good edit I'm happy to put my own name to. Yet this situation is instead turning into far too much of a route for continuing to edit in new areas, even during a block. As already noted, it's the person that's blocked, not the account. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I know who you are referring too and I'm also not entirely happy with this. Blocked should mean blocked, not blocked from doing your own edits but you can ask someone else to do them. That said, at least this arrangement avoids the problems that led to the block in the first place. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  The logic of that approach completely escapes me, assuming of course that our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. Eric Corbett 13:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Our purpose isn't though to create an encyclopedia single-handed. We also have to co-exist with other editors. Some editors are incapable of this and their own contributions become dwarfed by the disruption they cause to other, equally productive and equally valued, editors – hence the block. Production should be respected (I don't believe it is adequately), but it shouldn't become a get-out-of-jail-free card. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Forcing a problematic editor to make a request for every edit is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it's quite the hassle for the editor involved. Just remember that people get blocked for reasons unrelated to their content changes; they can be productive content editors and yet cause interpersonal problems bad enough to be blocked. This is a good way of ensuring that all edits are productive, because edits that aren't helpful are a good reason to shut down talk page access immediately. If we start following Spartaz' ideas, we're putting bureaucracy ahead of creating an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  What idea is that? I thought my comment indicated a certain lack of clarity around my thinking. I have taken no steps to prevent Apteva from posting their edit requests. Andy asked for thoughts about whether this is legit. I think I'm allowed to express a qualified opinion without becoming the focus of today's 2 minute hate. Clearly nuance is dead. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Responding to "Blocked should mean blocked, not blocked from doing your own edits but you can ask someone else to do them." Nyttend (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva (talk · contribs), notified. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• It's proxying, plain and simple. Remove Apteva's talk page access, and warn any editor that proxied for him that they will be blocked if they proxy again.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of WP:Block#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors " unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. " will they be blocked under?

If this was such a clear-cut issue, it wouldn't have been raised at WP:AN, but at WP:ANI requesting immediate withdrawal of talk page access. This is a grey area – there is no policy against GF editors following such a request (see my last comment there!), but is the requester abusing their leeway? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "and they have independent reasons for making such edits" is the relevant clause. Would any of the editors responding have edited the article without the prompting from the blocked user?—Kww(talk) 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Prompting and reason are not the same thing. If an editor is made aware of a useful potential edit at a blocked user's deliberate prompting, then they may then have reason to wish to make just that edit – even though they would never have had such reason without the blocked editor's prompt. This can be an entirely GF action and there is no reason to avoid them acting upon it, certainly not to block them, or even to threaten to block them, for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. Under your interpretation, the "independendent reason" clause would have no impact at all.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You are anyway far too ready to threaten blocking of other editors. I recall you threatening to block me for adding sources to a contested article, because you claimed that a contested statement now had to meet your personal OR definition, and that you would block editors who added anything that didn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Asking for a source that supports the characterization of the content as "unusual" for a list with the word "unusual" in the title is not the result of any idiosyncratic definition of WP:OR.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You might like to consider the concept of synonyms, rather than demanding a text string match. Even Google is smarter than that. We work by consensus, if a source is raised it's entirely reasonable to debate it on the article talk and either accept or reject it, with discussion, with understanding. Instead you prefer admins as omnipotent arbiters, with the power of blocks to back up questions of content. That is not how we work here.

In today's case, you're re-writing a policy that states quite specifically that editors can make proxy edits (in some reasonable circumstances), and you're threatening to block them on sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You might like to read what I actually said, Andy. Notice that I didn't use a synonym of synonym, I actually said "synonym".—Kww(talk) 22:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoosh. That one went clear over your head. 8-( Why do you think I not only quoted synonym, I even linked it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"You are anyway far too ready to threaten blocking of other editors." He is indeed. Eric Corbett 21:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Apteva's response

There is likely nothing that I could add that any other intelligent editor could not add. Blocks are never punitive, and solely preventative. My block is inappropriate because it is solely punitive and is not one iota preventative. Contributions are welcome from everyone, regardless of their status, and however they are received. This includes from a sockmaster that has been blocked a thousand times as well as from someone who never registers an account. We learn about some edits that need to be made from reading about them in the Daily Post, and some from someone making the edit. All that matters is that this is a world class encyclopedia, and we accomplish that through the five pillars, which is why the welcome notice with a link to them is displayed always on my talk page. There is much that I would be able to contribute but that I can not both because of being blocked but also because of being under silly sanctions which will be appealed soon. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple things:

• If you believe your block is entirely inappropriate and punitive then you should post an unblock request or email WP:BASC.
• You are flat out wrong about edits from sockmasters being welcome. Some people are not in fact welcome to edit here at all, even by proxy.
• You may think the sanctions you are subject to are silly, but the community imposed them on you, as I recall, after becoming completely exasperated by your behavior. If you expect an appeal to be successful you might want to try owning your own mistakes instead of blaming others.

Good luck with all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(posted before the comment above)

Remind me to notify Arb that some of our admins are unaware of our purpose here. What "and they have independent reasons for making such edits" means, plain and simple, is if a blocked editor sees that Wikipedia misspells the word "book" somewhere, say, as "bork", a quick consultation of a dictionary reveals that the word is misspelled. That is what independent reason means, not that you have to independently ''discover'' the error. No further action is needed, and the thread can be closed. Apteva (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, can we cut off the source of all the damn drama, take away Apteva's talk page access, which he has been blatantly abusing, close this discussion, and forget about this guy for a while? If he wants to be unblocked, he can take it to BASC, but there's no reason we have to keep putting up with his disruptiveness. He's managed to be tendentious even while blocked!! Someone shut the freaking door, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Amen to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 9 June 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.