Latest comment: 11 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion
Should an administrator be in e-mail contact with the subject of a BLP article assisting them with requests for images of them holding a notepad with their DOB for a reference for the article? If any editor is in constant contact with the subject...isn't that a conflict of interest?--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N02:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Editors with a conflict of interest are not forbidden from editing an article anyway, so I don't see that it matters. If this administrator is taking administrative action against other editors to the article, and you are accusing him of having a conflict of interest, then that is another issue, but one that would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Editors with a conflict of interest can edit. I have no issue with that. I understand that very well. What I am asking is this. Why is an administrator in contact with the subject suggesting things that are not RS for sourcing their article on Wikipedia and giving the subject a false sense of hope that the issues involved can be resolved with a photo, uploaded by that admin of the subject holding up a notepad of their DOB with no OTRS verification request until it is pointed out. I see an issue of whether or not the admin has a grasp of our policies and procedures if this is how they deal with content disputes on BLPs. But, as I understand you there is no issue here and nothing to worry about. Cool. Thanks.--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N03:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been in contact with a lot of people with articles on Wikipedia as part of OTRS or by some random way through which they get my email and contact me directly to help them with matters (mostly unreliable, false content). I think that attending those requests with neutrality complies with both the BLP and COI policies, as long as you take extreme care while editing the subject's article and letting them know what you can and cannot do at their behalf. I remember that, several months ago, I had an American famous rapper (whose name I'm not going to reveal) who were demanding us to remove a lot of content and then delete his page, and when he realized he could not get his page deleted, he wanted to excercise editorial oversight over it. Pretty funny-but-annoying case. — ΛΧΣ2103:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I really want to be clear here as I believe the information I am getting may be very relevant to me in the future. I may have been far to cautious with contacts I have received from BLP subjects. On this particular issue however, I am concerned that the neutrality has been breached and they are now actually creating issues that need to be dealt with, but nothing that requires admin intervention from what I see. I will advise the admin that they are not in the wrong but I do believe neutrality is still an issue they should be more cautious about. In the future I will be handling all requests from BLP subjects directly with them as having been confirmed to not be a COI issue. Thanks again ΛΧΣ.--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N03:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do you keep referring to me as an admin? I'm an editor regarding this issue. And why didn't you notify me about this post? Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It says at the top "...When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page...." This is about me, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Its about me and my concerns. If I wanted to mention you by name it would be about you. I didn't. Its about my concerns and as it turns out, I was right in not using names as there is no issue. If I used your name it would be an accusation against you. This was asking for clarification for my own concerns and editing in the future.--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N03:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
How was that creepy? Sure, we have an edit history and it doesn't take much to figure out that the question posted refers to a real situation, but as it was a question, not an accusation and I purposely did not mention anyone by name I also did not notify anyone.--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N04:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
And, in all honesty, I seriously want to be able to do what you are doing if it is acceptable. I have had situations where the subject was begging for help and I was more concerned about my being blocked, banned or yelled at! :-).--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N04:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just be honest and transparent, and follow the rest of the rules as normal. We at OTRS edit articles after talking with BLP subjects all the time. You do have to bear in mind though the privacy of the subject, and not reveal something from the emails that they intended to be confidential (I always assume they want everything to be confidential unless they specifically state otherwise). And if a BLP subject asks you to do something you're not comfortable with, just say no. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Cheers Mark. :) I totally share your concerns. I'm also really big on neutrality, avoiding coi, etc. I've been very careful in the emails and talk page in this regard. I've basically just tried to move things along, and get things resolved. I'm sorry I threw a wrench into the works, but at least I was able to bring in 3 new images and a birth month and year. I promise to remain neutral, stay out of things whenever possible, and protect Mark's privacy. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
FWIW I've previously been e-mailed by, and responded to, the subject of a BLP - he sent me independent sources that I then used to update the article. No harm in that - or is there? GiantSnowman16:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
At first my concern was getting involved with the subject. But..hey, we're not Starfleet and we don't have a non interference policy. My next concern was possibly misleading the subject, but that requires intent. Just being mistaken on how something works is not misleading the subject. Then my next concern, as mentioned by GiantSnowman was, that receiving independent sources from the subject was not being neutral if they came directly from the source, but we have been up and down that wall at COI and Jimbo's talk page over the BP incident. It seems odd to be in contact with a BLP subject, but doesn't appear to be an issue at all when handled correctly. I hope.--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N18:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
After Joel Yanofsky was suddely declared dead some vandal, I got in touch with Joel and he provided a few sources with which I expanded the article a bit -- I fail to see how that's a bad thing. As long as the edits themselves are fine, who cares if the subject and the editor are in contact? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉00:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
User:Chekkarajeev moved his userpages to projects space, then re-moved them to articlespace - leaving at least a set of redirects behind. Can someone please delete the redirects and move them back to his userspace before he starts getting talkpage messages ES&L09:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
...and he's done it again. BK, or anyone else want to do the honours - only this one will unfortunately need some additional oomph behind it ES&L09:25, 10 August 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.
Well then it must not be that one. All I know is that when I try to post from my phone, there's about a 20% chance that I will be told I can't edit, and that my block for being "hyogo"'s sockpuppet was imposed by Jayjg and will be expiring in May 2014. I don't know why, and I'm only guessing that mine is the 182 one based one edits I made logged out on my phone on other occasions. Can I get some assistance with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
A B class block on a phone system seems way too excessive and mistargetted, so I would agree that this should be unblocked. Another option is to give you permission to edit while the IP is blocked. But you would have to log on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 9 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion
The following users currently have the accountcreator right but are suspended due to inactivity (or other reasons) on the ACC tool. Can an admin please remove the accountcreator flag accordingly. Thank you.
Policy is listed here and the appropriate verbiage is:
Users who are no longer involved in the ACC process (meaning their ACC account has been suspended), or with the Education Program may have the user right removed at any time. Furthermore, administrators automatically inherit all the individual user rights of this user group.
Active account creators (both ACCers and people at educational institutions creating multiple accounts) are allowed to carry this flag while they are performing their duties, and are allowed to use them for other purposes such as edit notices, overriding the rate limit, and title blacklist overriding.
As he's still active, he can keep the flag - though I should mention the flag's main purpose (as it's so titled) is to create accounts. Those noted above haven't created any recent accounts, and that seems quite contrary to the initial purpose of the flag - however, consensus was already made in the link above. Dusti*Let's talk!*08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Umm... I don't feel that he is still active. As you noted Dusti, the verbiage says
Active account creators (both ACCers and people at educational institutions creating multiple accounts) are allowed to carry this flag while they are performing their duties
The fact that he is still using them for "other purposes" solely does not include him as using them to "preform the duties of an account creator". Technical 13 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Errm, I hold the right as a result of a WP:RFPERM not too long ago, not as a result of ACC activity. I also created a dozen or so 6 weeks ago, so unless that already is "inactivity", your research is a bit patchy. I request that my flag not be removed. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I based it off of the fact that your ACC access is suspended for inactivity - and the fact that you haven't demonstrated a need for the flag as you haven't created a number of accounts in over two months that would cause you to hit the rate limit. Dusti*Let's talk!*14:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this is based on a misunderstanding. I got ACC access 3 years ago and was suspended due do inactivity. I never had +accountcreator while at ACC. I requested the right at RFPERM around May 2013 and got it. This alone should demonstrate my need for that flag, but I did create 10 accounts on 19 June 2013 from the same IP, after none of my trainees could create any more accounts due to the 6-per-day rule. So indeed all of my account creations in 2013 required the right, I could not have created any without it. Not sure where you get the 2-month threshold from, but 19 June is not over two months ago, and my education outreach activities do occasionally have gaps of more than 2 months. Next planned event is on 19 August, so please do not remove the right. --Pgallert (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
That RFC could have been better worded, the comments section shows there was confusion about whether active meant active on Wikipedia, or actively creating accounts. Furthermore, the RFC is silent as to the level of activity required, or what to do with those who are no longer active. At best, the RFC clearly establishes that account creator should not be granted for the other reasons. Monty84515:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I use mine to edit editnotices (last one in May) that sometimes show up in the CAT:EP queue. I don't edit much at the moment, but when I'm in a high activity phase it's nice to have. Revoking these permissions seems unnecessary if they're not being abused, especially when there is incremental benefit from just leaving them be. — Bility (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the definition of "inactivity". Also, is any of those listed individuals belonging to the education program (EP)? I don't think those EP individuals should have their ACC taken away when school term starts in a month. Also, summer is usually a down time for most schools so some may appear to be inactive since January (start of winter term) because they don't teach during summer. OhanaUnitedTalk page04:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Done, but something's wrong: there's no TFD notice on pages that transclude the template, even if (such as in the case of Scientific American) the page gets edited to avoid waiting for the job queue. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe I should be unblocked because back then when I did whatever it was that got me blocked, I was a teenager. I know there were times where I did some disruptive editing and there were times I've blanked some pages, but that was a long time ago when I was a teenager. I understand what I did was wrong and I promise not to ever do it again. I would like to be forgiven for what I did.
My inclination would be to let them take advantage of the standard offer assuming they haven't socked, or done anything else wrong since their talk page access was revoked. While they clearly earned the block in the past, the conduct was the sort of thing that a couple years may make a difference.That they are asking to be unblocked, rather then socking, speaks well for them. I think another chance is in order. Maybe ask them to address the articles they created which needed to be deleted, just to make sure that problematic articles wont reoccur as an issue. Monty845 14:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Struck in light of CUnote. Reconsider in 6+ months. Monty84503:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "back then when I did whatever it was that got me blocked" gives me zero confidence whatsoever - if they don't even know why they were blocked then how do we know they will not repeat it? GiantSnowman14:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Like Monty, I think that it's an admirable display of honesty to request unblocking of the original account instead of just creating a new one (technically a policy violation, but rather easy to get away with after several years). On that basis alone, I support unblocking. Nonetheless, since we had a very persuasive unblock request the other week by someone who turned out to still be socking, a CheckUser query might be prudent. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block)15:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Checkuser note: I can confirm that this user evaded their block by editing while logged out between June and July of this year. Tiptoetytalk03:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Tiptoey - don't think I'm being mean or anything, but I tend to assume a ton of good faith. If you still remember the evidence, was it undeniably him (as in, there is absolutely no possible explanation)? If he's telling the truth and he hasn't edited in 6+ months it could've been a family member, an internet cafe, a school, etc... I think we may need more clarification from him (Morts) if there's any chance he's telling the truth. ~Charmlet-talk-03:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... Well, that's a shame. Before I strike my !vote, and while being aware that you can't go into much detail about the edits, could you perhaps give us a summary of their extent? I.e., was this a handful of small edits, or something broader or deeper? (I'm aware that the former is still block evasion, but if it's only a few edits, then, who knows, perhaps it was those edits that made them remember how much they liked editing Wikipedia, and made them want to come back "the right way".) — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block)14:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock – I'm inclined to assume good faith. It's been over two and a half years since the user was blocked, and the user's unblock request indicates (at least to me) a willingness to change their behavior. It's time to allow this user back. If the user continues to be disruptive, they can be reblocked. Heymid (contribs) 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock - I'm thinking we assume good faith and leave them some rope. I would however he very interested in Morts623's explanation of the socking plus the area they would like to edit in if they are unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock - I always believe in second (10th) chances. But in case of unblock even a small overstepping of Wikipedia guidelines should be met with a block again.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent socking will almost always get an oppose to unblock from me. Recent socking without it being disclosed in the request to unblock will always get a strong oppose from me. As such, I feel an unblock would not best serve the encyclopedia, as transparency is the best indicator of good intention imo. SnowolfHow can I help?10:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
As long as Tiptoety hasn't explained the characters of these edits (i.e. constructive, neutral, or disruptive), I'm willing to assume good faith. Also, Tiptoety states above that the user only made "a handful of small edits". While I'm not trying to encourage socking, I think we should assume good faith in this case and unblock the user. Heymid (contribs) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting that all oppose !votes are based on the recent block evasion/sockpuppetry. Tiptoety states above that the user only "made a handful of small edits" and that the edits "appear to be very minor corrections, like spacing between words. Certainly nothing disruptive.". Heymid (contribs) 17:57, 10 August 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.
Closing
ScienceApologist (Previously_ScienceApologist (talk·contribs)) wishes to be unblocked. His contributions have been of high quality, while there has been some issues with socking in the four years he has been blocked for socking (this has formed into a vicious cycle, the only reason his block has continue is because he wants to edit wikipedia). He also did have some bad interactions with editors in the past who have themselves, for the most part, now been blocked or left (we are talking 4 years ago after all). Considering the only issue is that he wants to edit wikipedia but can't, the easiest means of rectifying the situation is an unblock. SA is willing to accept additional requirements to provide reassurances to people: "I accept any conditions on an unblock". Thoughts? SA notified by email IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. No recommendation, at the moment. But unblocking would set a precedent - sock until the community gets tired of dealing with it and you're unblocked. One would think that the best way to convince the community that you intend to follow the rules would be to - wait for it - follow the rules. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did18:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow your wording. There have been instances of socking in the last 4 years, but not in at least the last two months. Also, as far as I am aware, SA did not sock before this while unblocked. What are you preventing by having him blocked? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You say he has been blocked for 4 years but hasn't socked for 2 months. That implies he socked for 3 years 10 months. GiantSnowman18:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not imply, you inferred, and I don't agree. If I said you hadn't socked for at least the last 2 months, it doesn't mean you were socking before that. It means what I said, that in the last 2 month period there were no socks. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
No I didn't. I said "there has been some issues with socking", that isn't the same as "numerous times". Can you focus on the unblock request itself rather than whether I implied X or Y. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) For those in the audience who haven't been following this matter closely, could you provide a bit more information and context?
Is there a link to the original discussion (AN/I or ArbCom or what?) that led him to be blocked/banned(?) in the first place? Could someone provide a brief description of the events that led him to be banned/blocked?
Regarding block evasion with socks, when and how many? When was the last one?
On reasons why an unblock would be a good idea, can the justification be expanded a bit beyond 'most of the people he was fighting with are gone'? (I mean, I suspect that there are at least a few new editors who might disagree with ScienceApologist now.)
Regarding the desire for an unblock, where or how did he make the request? Does he have any statement that he would like to make on his own behalf?
What has happened with previous unblock requests, if any?
What conditions, restrictions, or topic bans was he under prior to his block/ban, and would there be any such restrictions if he were unblocked?
I'm not trying to shoot down this request, nor to pre-judge or imply a preference for any particular outcome, but there's a lot of information missing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
SA makes very high quality edits to both astronomy/science articles as well as fringe subjects. Even if he were not permitted to edit articles directly, his advice he could provide at WP:FTN would be invaluable.
His desire for an unblock is stated all over his userpage, and in his recent ArbCom request (ArbCom rejected the request on the grounds of jurisdiction; indicating that it was not an arbcom block and things should be taken to AN/ANI or similar).
His last unblock [1] was rejected stating he had a block log that was too long and that an unblock would not be considered.
non admin second chance !vote/do not oppose unblock, but don's support either a 3 month block, from 2011, extended to true infinity seems excessive in the absence of a arbcom decision or wider consensus of a community ban. Certainly the repeated socking is problematic, and while block avoidance is troublesome, he was not using the socks for otherwise nefarious purposes (trying to swing consensus etc). I think a Wikipedia:Standard offer, with a very short leash can be appropriate, especially in light of the judgement that his edits are generally of high quality. Per the discussion above, he has not socked for 2 months : When is the last time he was caught socking? The standard offer suggests 6 months. Could the 2 months be counted towards this, and reset his block to 4 months? Or in a worst case scenario give him the full 6 months starting now? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Extend standard offer - this would be a terrible precedent to set. If there's any reason this is a "special case" then reduce the sock-free period required from 6 months to 3, but some indication that this user is willing to play by the rules is needed. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate19:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. We've gone down this road before. "You made me sock because you kicked me out" is one of the least compelling arguments I can think of. If he can show the self control to follow the standard offer for the full six-month period, that's much more compelling, and even then I'd like to see a CU run just to be sure. Other times we winked at block evasion it has not ended well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a couple questions before I weigh in. How have the confirmed SA socks behaved? (The only one I can recall is the one who kept trying to delete Wikipe-tan.) Have his socks been editing constructively or engaging in disruption? What are the most recent socks that we know of? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any of the socks were identified as being problematic. i.e if they weren't socks they would not have been blocked, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree the standard offer is the way forward here. If an editor can't comply with our straightforward policy on socking for six months then that isn't very promising for any possible return to editing. As noted above Eliminatesoapboxing (talk·contribs) was still editing two months ago. Hut 8.521:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Calling it "declined arbcom unblock request" is kind of missing the point of why they declined. They referred the case to AN (as I mentioned above). IRWolfie- (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Would you have rather I called it a "rejected" request? I did not contradict your statement that it should go to AN. In any event, SA's pattern of repeatedly violating rules that he doesn't agree with bodes ill as a reason for unblocking him. GregJackPBoomer!11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock - Support standard offer - If SA really has changed, six months of no socking (verified by CU) would be sufficient to give him another chance. If think he has things to offer to the encyclopedia, if he could just moderate his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
SA has done excellent work in defending the encyclopedia from crankery, but the avalanche of nonsense with the continual arrival of "new" editors ready to argue the same points over and over wore him down. I support any unblock appeal from SA that includes a brief statement explaining how he will deal with that problem. I would suggest, for example, that if a group of new editors were to start using Homeopathy to promote the sale of bottles of water to cure disease, then SA should just walk away after doing a few reverts or posting a dozen comments in a week—leave it to someone else. We routinely unblock disruptive editors who have no record of improving the encyclopedia, and per WP:ROPE, there is no problem with unblocking SA who does have a long record of improving the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The argument that someone should be unblocked because we can't permanently stop them from evading their block is not sensible, and should be rejected out of hand. The sustained socking and unhelpful editing behavior set out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive appears to indicate that not much has changed since the conduct which led to the block (as set out at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist). As such, I see no grounds to unblock, so I oppose this proposal. WP:STANDARDOFFER obviously applies, but it would also need to be accompanied by a convincing commitment to avoid the conduct which led to the block. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock - having looked into this further, I feel an editor who cannot go 2 months without abiding by basic rules (i.e. no socking!) should not be unblocked at this time. Standard offer applies - 6 months is the minimum for me. GiantSnowman08:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Then why not support, at a minimum, changing the indefinite block to 4 months? The issue is that his current requests are being rejected out of hand [3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Because what if he socks again in that time? Indefinite =/= forever, as you full well know. Evidence 6 months of sock-free-ness and then we can review. GiantSnowman10:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
One might argue that a reduced to four month block doesn't mean "Don't sock for four more months" but "Don't get caught socking for four more months". The difference is not insignificant. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock. Two points: You might call Science Apologist the AndyTheGrump of his time. Kww's rationale, also at the recent RFAR, for keeping him blocked is interesting, almost provocative: "If this were an ideal world, I would simply ban most of the editors that SA disagrees with, as that would eliminate both the edit warring and things like Wikipedia's excessively gullible point of view towards crystal worship, homeopathy, electric voice phenomena, vaccine hysteria, and similar topics. This isn't an ideal world though, and SA's contributions, while nearly invariably right, served to galvanize the forces intent on inserting these things into articles. … I've advocated banning all pseudoscience advocates from Wikipedia before, and continue to believe that's the best solution. Until we do that, though, SA's presence is counterproductive."[4] (Please read the whole.) As with Swift's Modest Proposal for eating babies, it's logical, I have to reluctantly agree with the reasoning, but is there really no other way? What will blocking the defenders of the wiki do — what is it doing — to article quality? I'm getting really cynical about this project and its openness to "crystal worship, homeopathy, electric voice phenomena" etc. Secondly, in his recent unblock appeal to ArbCom, Science Apologist says he wasn't socking, but other people at his institution were using the same IP or "user agent" (I don't even understand what that means) and that he has no way of ensuring that the same thing won't happen again in the next four months.[5] Therefore he fears never being able to benefit from the Standard Offer. His tone is a little uncertain; if I understand it, he's not denying all socking, but only the more recent cases (supported by checkuser like the others). If there are technical or other reasons for not assuming good faith and believing him, can someone explain them to me, please? Bishonen | talk12:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC).
Just to answer the "user agent" question, a user agent is some piece of software you use to do stuff on the Internet. When you edit Wikipedia or otherwise browse the Web, you fire up Internet Explorer or Safari or Firefox... this is your user agent. Each piece of Web-browsing software identifies itself to the websites with a string of characters that provides the name of the piece of software, its version number, etc. so that the website can deliver Web pages in a format that works with your browser. This user agent string is one of the things checkusers use to determine if two accounts are coming from the same computer, or possibly coming from a bank of computers all managed by the same IT department. For more detail, take a look at User agent. Zad6813:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Zad, but I only wanted to indicate that I didn't wholly understand what I was quoting — I didn't mean it greatly matters what "user agent" means. My actual question right at the end, though, "If there are technical or other reasons for not assuming good faith and believing him, can someone explain them to me, please?", is something I'd really, really like to know, and I wish somebody would address it. Are there any checkusers or otherwise technically savvy people reading this thread? Furthermore: I think ScienceApologist should be invited to take part in this discussion, as he did in the RFAR. I have told him on his page that I'd be happy to move any comments he makes on his page to this thread. Though I think it's a silly long way round, mind you. In my opinion he should be unblocked for the purpose of taking part here in the normal fashion. (Only here.) Bishonen | talk20:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC).
Comment. Let me throw some more random numbers in - If SA is worthy of a standard offer now, but just has to wait four months... I dunno, why not throw him to the wolves now (so to speak) and see how he does? The more I think about this, the more I come to think that we either need to unblock him now - or not at all. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You appear to have missed the point that they just rejected to take this case and explicitly said it was up to the community to decide. Whether you believe they should have decided it or not, they are not going to. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not miss it. It's Arbcom's job to handle cases like this, where some important info is not public. Punting to AN shows a lack of some desirable attributes in the current Arbitrators. They are also supposed to handle the intractable cases and act as the final venue of appeals for blocks/bans. Given the length of the block log and other editing sanctions previously affecting Science Apologist, this is one such case that ArbCom should handle. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock: Bishonen's and Kww's reasoning pretty much is echoed by me here. He's an editor of the highest calibre, which is why I volunteered to proxy for him back in 2009 under ArbCom permission. I'm amenable to a shortened standard offer (October 1st is the latest I'd support the standard offer to). Sceptre(talk)16:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The most recent sockpuppet edited on June 5, just two months ago. SA should show more restraint, like not socking for six months, before being welcomed back. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd support unblocking now, per Johnuniq above. Instead of deciding how many more months he should be made to sit on the sidelines, we should welcome him back now, and focus instead on how SA can do what he does well, without causing such a wake. Instead of using "can he stay away for 4 more months" as a measure of whether he's able to adjust his approach, why not use "can he adjust his approach" to measure it? Work out some reasonable terms with him, unblock, and see how it goes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock - Meh, why not? The incivility is academic as long as we keep editors like Malleus around, so that's not a valid reason to keep a proverbial "vested contributor" on the outside looking in. So what we're left with is the socking, a topic that personally I feel differently than I may have a few years ago. If a person is socking so that they may return to genuinely contribute content...or to see to it that bad content is not retained in article-space...then that's a still frowned-upon but ultimately redeemable reason. Socking to continue grudges, troll, harass, vandalize, etc... is the bad stuff. So let em back in with promises to stick to one account and let's see how it goes. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Because like it or not, you're the standard by which uncivil-but-productive editors are judged. Be proud of your standing, you're essentially blockproof. Tarc (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock I'm with Bish, Floq and Tarc. Seems he's on the side of the angels, with some rough edges, so let's unblock, restrict a bit if we must, and help him to help us. Begoontalk20:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock, support standard offer: I'm sorry, but 2 months of not being caught socking, following socking on and off for nearly 4 years, is not convincing enough. If they make it to six months without a sock being clocked, then fine, unblock them. Until then, no; there's a reason the standard offer exists. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)20:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock The lengthy block log is extremely troubling. SA has failed to explain what went so horribly wrong last time and how they plan to avoid repeating their mistakes, nor have they have provided any evidence of cooperative editing on another Wiki project. These are pretty much standard conditions for lifting this sort of block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Last sock barely 2 months ago? No thank you, if the user can show that they can stop socking for 6 months, then it should be considered, otherwise, no way. SnowolfHow can I help?22:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Socking is almost always denied. The system is setup so that some users are entrusted by users entrusted by the community to look at certain technical information to locate additional accounts. If they say somebody is socking, we can only take them at their word, not having access to said information ourselves. ScienceApologist is free to take this to other venues, but I see no reason not to oppose an unblock based on a CU block. SnowolfHow can I help?10:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Allow him to edit under 0RR for his own edits, 1RR for other edits. The discussion here about socking is total distraction, it's not a relevant problem if someone who was banned ages ago makes constructive edits here as an IP. Per WP:IAR we are actually not even allowed to make a problem out of this unless it poses a problem for the actual content of Wikipedia. The real problem with SA was that he has problems with engaging with editors who he strongly disagrees with about content issues, particularly on topics related to pseudo-science and alternative medicine (which is for a large part based on pseudo-scientific concepts). He would insist on having things his way, which then unnecessarily polarizes the editing climate. I.m.o., the best way to deal with this issue is to let him stick to 0RR for all his own edits and 1RR for all other edits. Under such a regime, he won't be able to go about his business as he was used to; obviously if you are under 0RR it's pointless to write a text in an article that only you are prepared to defend. So, for him to participate in editing would require him to discuss with other editors what a reasonable compromize text would be that has enough support that it would stick without him being able to fight for it.Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Science Apologist (SA) has always been good for the content of Wikipedia. He adds good content and removes bad content. SA is also one of the best editors I have ever seen at spotting articles in the science, fringe science, and pseudoscience areas that have problems with POV pushing. I support unblocking SA as soon as possible. Cardamon (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: I've invited SA to take part here via his talkpage, but he has declined with thanks. People might be interested in reading his reply here. Furthermore, I've asked above if there are technical or other reasons for not assuming good faith and believing him when he claims he despairs of being able to benefit from the Standard Offer because other people at his institution have used the same IP and he has no way of ensuring that the same thing won't happen again in the next four months. It seems difficult to get an answer. I've tried in vain to find a checkuser on IRC to ask for input here, and have now e-mailed a couple of them. Bishonen | talk10:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC).
For someone who is so eager to edit Wikipedia that they use numerous socks to evade a block, they do not be so keen to make a case for themselves at their own talk page. GiantSnowman10:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Bish, I'd possibly be in support of an unblock, were it not for what strikes me as a very implausible denial of those socks. A user agent is the identifying string of a browser, it's not like an IP address (that could easily be shared) and can often be quite unique. Coupled with the obvious knowledge of Wikipedia shown by those new accounts, and their return to SA's general areas of interest, in my opinion it is completely implausible that they weren't his socks. Checkusers are used to the problems of shared IP addresses, which is why that is not the only evidence they rely on, but instead a combination of all factors - and in this case it all adds up to socking. --Errant(chat!)11:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
User agent strings are unique by browser and version, not by browser installation. They can be modified by browser add-ons. Common user agent strings are far more widely shared than IPs, and they are trivial to spoof anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
So, if I were to edit as an IP from my university account, if I log out and go home and someone else logs on into his unversity account on the same computer and he were to edit Wikipedia, that would leave an identical signature if that other user were to use the same browser? Count Iblis (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Mostly true; however User Agents report operating system too. And Checkusers understand these things; so if we have a UA/IP match, with new accounts who clearly know how WP works, editing within the same areas SA has an interest... --Errant(chat!)08:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock: I actually believe what he says and am all for giving people another chance. What has the project got to lose - other than some valuable content. Giano 15:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock with a one-account restriction (which account to unblock will be his choice). This restriction should include no editing by IP either. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Much can be said in defense of any editor willing to keep the wackos, fringe POV pushers and charlatans at bay. Sometimes in the face of incessant POV pushing from the lunatic faction, we need editors that are fearless. I say unblock him, limit him to one account and 1RR.--MONGO17:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose (6) - GregJackP, Someone not using his real name, Binksternet, A Quest For Knowledge, Kww, T. Canens
Standard offer (9) - Gaijin42, Basalisk, Beeblebrox, Hut 8.5, Beyond My Ken, Nick-D, GiantSnowman, Lukeno94, Snowolf
Realizing that this is not a vote, at present there does not seem to be significant community support for unblocking SA. At most, a standard offer is the best option he seems to have. Anyone should feel free to correct the tally if I made a mistake somewhere or if I misread someone's position. GregJackPBoomer!16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Bishonen and I support an unblock...and Bishonen is able to summon an army the likes of which has never been seen before on this earth.--MONGO17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Considering the dramatic nature of your history with SA (I am unsure if I it is something which can be discussed on wiki, someone can ping me with clarification), do you really consider it prudent for you to take part in this discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock per the above, the discussion on his talk and for the good edits to technical articles since Sept. '04. Per his rather problematic block log, I'd suggest he avoid the problem areas: focus on the science and avoid the fringe. WP is a bit different than 5-8 years ago. Vsmith (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock Per all the unblock comments, and more specifically those by Bishonen, Johnuniq and Sceptre. This is a very unusual case. As Bishonen mentions, it is widely acknowledged that SA's edits were mostly correct and that he fought against fringe-science advocates. This is an imperfect situation where a defender of the wiki galvanised the fringe science forces and got in trouble. But this is also an imperfect world with all the cruft currently present at our fringe-science articles so we should not aim to find the perfect solution. Hopefully, under the proper safeguards, SA will not antagonise others as severely as he did in the past. Therefore I support the imperfect but appropriate solution of unblocking SA subject to the appropriate restrictions and caveats. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I remember following discussions regarding SA's methods of trying to keep this an encyclopedia that doesn't try to convince its readers of anything (except its mission to stick to reliable sources). Some of SA's methods have proven to be ineffective, obviously. I think SA realizes that and is able to adjust his behavior. These past seven years, I've followed several bold editors (admins and non-admins) who dedicate a lot of their time, brains, and effort against tilting of articles toward points of view on or outside the fringes of an academic body of scholarly and scientific sources. Some of them are quite effective without getting banned (though very few of them never get in trouble). If SA's methods don't change, it probably won't be difficult to raise it here and have SA re-banned. I really hope that won't happen. Anyway, Unblock.---Sluzzelintalk21:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock: Per Bishonen's spot-on argument. I see a diamond in the rough here that's worth keeping rather than discarding. The rough edges might need some polishing, but the value of this editor to the project has been well demonstrated. God knows we need all the help we can get in dealing with all the fringe promoters who often overwhelm the project. While I normally take a very dim view of socking, no real malice was intended or harm done in this case. Would recommend some mentoring perhaps. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock. Oy. I don't edit Wikipedia very often anymore, but really wanted to chime in here. I remember that SA was sorely missed when he was sent out. If he edits disruptively now (after 4 some-odd years) it will be trivial to block him again. Wikipedia pseudoscience articles will be better off in the meantime for his work. Good luck. HiDrNick! 21:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment From what I can tell, based off his block log and the list of sanctions here, he has been blocked for two years, not four, because he violated an AE topic ban on edits relating to pseudoscience and fringe science. The topic ban was indefinite and, presumably, would still be in effect following an unblock unless stated otherwise. Unless he commits to abiding by the topic ban or the topic ban is lifted along with him being unblocked, then to unblock him would be irresponsible. Either this is a proposal for an unblock and lifting of his topic ban or SA has made some reasonable commitment to abiding by his restriction.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.22:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but some of us are trying to look at whether the guy wants to contribute positively, and how he wants to do that, and whether we feel long enough is long enough, rather than wikilawyering blather. He identifies and edits against fringe nonsense, and there's precious few prepared to take the bullshit that goes with that. When the project is prepared to look at the real issues instead of the sort of rules mongering nonsense you allude to, I'll be a happier bunny. Ymmv. . Begoontalk00:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No "rules mongering" involved. This is common sense. He was subject to a topic ban, his block being for violating it and then saying he would continue to do so using socks, and most unblock votes do not explicitly address that. Unless his topic ban is addressed here, this vote is just asking for trouble. I don't think you should let someone back into the candy store unless you address the previous issues resulting from their candy-fixation.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.01:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Lovely opinion, but I'll support someone prepared to defend the encyclopedia against fringe crap over any of your nonsense, any day. Reasonable people can differ, and I do, from that. Always. Begoontalk01:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
@The Devil's Advocate. No, the topic ban, imposed on January 14, 2011, was not indefinite. It was for one year, [7], [8], and there were criticisms of it at the time, with which I agree. Cardamon (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Tim extended it to indefinite after the socking and, either way, the ban is supposed to reset when he gets unblocked. It is a perfectly valid point that the topic ban has to be addressed in some way for any of this to have meaning. If he is unblocked without either a commitment to respect the topic ban or an agreement here to lift it then we will just be right back where we started. Some clearly support an unblock provided that he stay away from the topic area and others seem to support letting him return to the topic area so it is not as if everyone supporting an unblock agrees on the matter.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.04:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock with no restrictions SA was a prolific and intelligent editor who had some behavioral issues, but 4 2 years is a long time to mature. We'll lose nothing by giving him a chance but have a lot to gain by welcoming him back. NoformationTalk22:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment The evasive, non admission, non denial of most recent socking here suggests that SA does not intend to be open and honest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock, unrestricted, no Topic Ban. A lot of time has passed. I sense that the person behind the account has matured. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Standard Offer. jps (as he now signs himself) is putting on an act of injured innocence; if he is unwilling to admit that he has done anything wrong, there is no reason to expect his behaviour to improve. He has been attempting to deflect attention from his numerous socks by an unconvincing attack on the reliability of the CU process. Most of the rest of us make do with one identity and try and control our annoyance with other editors. It would be a very regrettable precedent if jps is somehow exempted from these obligations. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock - Ultimately we have to decide what is better for the 'pedia - SA's adherence to sourcing policies support the notion that he will be a net improvement. As far as battleground behaviour, anyone who edits in these area knows the difficulties of keeping things collaborative rather than confrontational. As far as options, I don't think the Standard Offer is viable, both for reasons SA has outlined above concernin IP edits, but also the committee would have seen fit to follow it (which they haven't). Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings on this one. I'm inclined to believe T. Canens about the socking; it seems more likely than not. On the other hand, I feel pretty strongly that ScienceApologist is a significant potential benefit to the project, and for that reason it's worth exploring ways to make this work - even though, yes, he's accumulated a lot of blocks and yes, he's almost certainly not leveling with us about the socks.
People who work in the trenches to keep Wikipedia's scientific content serious and accurate don't typically wind up with FA stars or other visible badges of merit. Mostly, they end up with frayed tempers, lots of enemies, and scroll bars on the sides of their block logs. I'm going to invoke what I'll call the "Matisse rule": we've gone much further out of our way to accommodate much more divisive and toxic editors than ScienceApologist, so why be chintzy here?
Everyone has their "pet cause" - the editor for whom you'll advocate a third or fourth or fifth chance because of their potential to benefit the project. I guess this is mine, and on that basis I'd support an unrestricted unblock. In fact, I've considered simply unblocking ScienceApologist myself, but frankly I'm not active or invested in this project enough anymore to take responsibility for monitoring him and responding to complaints. So there it is. MastCellTalk23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. GregJackP, I think you should detail as much as you are able the conflict you had with ScienceApologist (SA) off-wiki. I think the participants here would want to know about it as it might influence their opinions on the person behind the SA account. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to discuss what lengths SA went to silence someone he disagreed with. I don't have a problem with someone else discussing it, but I'm not getting into it. GregJackPBoomer!12:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Unblock - Having seen the valuable edits made by JPS over the years, and thinking very much along the lines of MastCell's comments two pars above this, I support his unblock. Yes, I am mindful of his history, but I also saw the pledge he gave on his talk page today saying "I am committed in the future to stick to a single account.....". Moriori (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Unblock - Frankly should not have been blocked in the first place just for doing the right thing the wrong way, but "no good deed goes unpunished". Many people have trouble tolerating injustice, we can't really be surprised he took the block badly. Four years older and presumably wiser, it's time that he had a chance to demonstrate it.LeadSongDogcome howl!00:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Question to SA Can you please tell use what went so horribly wrong the last time you were allowed to edit Wikipedia and how you plan to avoid such mistakes in the future? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a good question, but as someone who has spent a little time looking at a few arguments from those wanting to use Wikipedia to promote fringe nonsense, an even better question would be "how can any editor defend the encyclopedia and stay sane?". That sounds flippant, but I mean it sincerely—the current model is broken because it relies on a few good editors who struggle unassisted, but who then are thrown to the wolves when they inevitably cross the normal edit warring or civility lines. There is another issue, namely that defenders-of-sanity sometimes get carried away and want to label everything that is not mainstream science as FRINGE. For example, Talk:Ghost/pseudoscience has a lot of babble over whether Ghost is a "pseudoscience". In some cases, an editor known for their advocacy of crankery will go to a less-obvious page and will start an issue there. Those correctly opposing the crank on crank articles, may then get sucked into a pit of despair where they end up overstating their case, and that leads to lack of support from third parties, which leads to frustration, which ends up with blocks. I do not know what happened in SA's case, but what I've described has been a factor for some—there is no good way to handle all the advocacy that occurs in articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Support because, really, what could go wrong? He'll have a million eyes scrutinizing his every move if he is unblocked, so what harm could he do? Despite his, at times, obnoxious behaviour SA is one of the good guys and we have a long history of finding reasons to excuse worse behaviour from worse people. ReykYO!01:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh. A voice of reason. That's it, really Reyk. I wish I could have summed it up so succinctly, except to repeat - He's one of the good guys. Begoontalk01:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutral As I said on SA's talkpage a week and a half ago, I'm not entirely opposed to giving him another chance and I "think there's a need for [SA's] type of work here and [his] return is likely a net positive". SA and I have some history; for example, he called for a community ban for me on ANI a few years ago (no supports) and continues to characterize me in ways that I feel are personal attacks (e.g., he called me a fringe advocate on his talkpage just a week and a half ago). Historically, we had some disagreements over how to handle medical controversies, where, to simplify, in many cases the dispute is not about whether something is characterized as fringe but rather whether the characterization should be repeated over and over, include controversial original research, or emphasized in particularly nasty language. Nasty language rarely sticks, leading to recurring arguments until the wording is toned down. Unfortunately, some people who do not edit in science areas at all (such as User:Kww, who believes all "fringe advocates" should be banned, but largely focuses on editing pop music articles) endorse the methods without getting into the weeds of what is going on. With SA, there's apparently little grey area: you're either an ally or an enemy. He's never made a secret of the fact that he is on Wikipedia to right wrongs and as a crusading knight does glorious battle. There's also a bit of a Puck or Loki persona in the way he continually tests boundaries. If he had shown a somewhat different attitude when I commented just recently, I would be happy to support him. But he doesn't really show a different attitude. As I mentioned to him, it is "theoretically true that people have agendas, but to go around imputing motives and hidden agendas to everyone around you is socially dysfunctional" and also that the "prevailing mood around here is that the drama needs to be contained, not inflamed". Hopefully, my neutrality on this issue doesn't ignite a longstanding grudge (to be fair, I think SA is more mature than that). II | (t - c) 01:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I freely admit that I don't edit science articles much, and it's primarily because I can't deal with them without becoming so wrapped up in the conflict with other editors that it makes me angry and mean. People don't seem to realize that what they normally see here on Wikipedia is my warm, gentle, and fluffy side.—Kww(talk) 02:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the mature response. I don't want to distract from the topic, and I believe you and I discussed this before a long time ago. My comment about you probably feels like a personal attack and I expected you to respond with more indignation. It is not intended as a personal attack and I'm sorry I even had to make it. However, you hold a very extreme and my opinion very wrong view on this topic and I don't think you can reasonably expect it to be unchallenged. To be fair, my knowledge of your edits goes back only a few months (which I checked before I commented) and a vague prior recollection in one of your adminship runs a while back. 99.9% of scientific articles are completely uncontroversial most of the time and there are quite a few simpler ones which would welcome your attention (alas, I've been remiss lately). I'm not saying I'm a heavy science editor (especially lately), and lately I've spent much more time on finance and law. There are issues with fringe views, yes, but calling for a broad swath of the population to be banned (through who knows what mechanism) is not the right approach. This would presumably be the union of such editors, and would thus encompass the gamut of those with diverse views from those concerned with Bisphenol A (whose alleged toxicity is regarded as a fringe position in some circles) to Tea Party fans and Obama birthers. It kind of sounds like run-of-the-mill sensationalizing, which isn't really helpful. II | (t - c) 02:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock Let's give him a chance. If he turns out to be a net negative, he'd be blocked pretty fast. If he turns to be a net positive, then we just gained a new asset. If we don't take the risk to lose, we will never win. — ΛΧΣ2103:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Unblock - productive editor, usually following the rules, lets give him the second chance. It is easy to hit the block button if his behavior would not be constructive Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock per Vsmith, MastCell and others. His contributions to science articles were an asset to wikipedia. If problems did arise after being unblocked, his editing would be under scrutiny. Mathsci (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Unblock Once again, we have someone here who is claimed to be so special that the rules don't apply to him, despite his crimes. No one's irreplaceable and the project can live without his contributions until he proves he can follow the same rules as the rest of us peons are forced to. Jtrainor (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock. He tripped over his own feet years ago and was blocked for far too long a period to be 'preventative' - what exactly has it prevented? More good would be done by an unblock. →StaniStani05:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose; lying about obvious socks (see T. Canens comments) undermines any commitment to abiding by the rules. I'd have supported but for this. --Errant(chat!)08:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock, suggest standard offer like everyone else gets. Rationale: Bad precedent to set (sock until people get fed up and let you come back), uneasy about all the "defending the wiki" twaddle (this is an online encyclopaedia and we use sources and consensus, not brute force to resolve our differences), fundamentally do not trust this user who has broken our rules, been sanctioned, lied and cheated and now wants to come back. No; do six months without cheating your sanction, then come back and tell us how it will be different this time around. Otherwise we will just have more drama and wasted time. --John (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock. I have had runs in with socks of SA. An interesting one was User talk: Junjunone. Although at first the decision was that Junjunone wasn't an SA sock [10], he was later determined to be a SA sock - [11] and User:Previously ScienceApologist. He was masquerading as a new editor, but I think this allowed him to show his true colours. He was arrogant and rude (see e.g. last para[12] - another editor's response to a Junjunone attack), but was given the benefit of the doubt being a new user. He also tried to change Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Ask an expert - this from a supposedly new user) to allow experts (i.e. him) to adjudicate on pages. This of course is like Scholarpedia, so I really don't know why he just doesn't sling his hook and go to work for Scholarpedia.
I must admit there were times when I wondered whether he was simply winding up mainstream astronomers to see how uncritical they were, so I completely agree with a quote by Henry H. Bauer: "ScienceApologist gives a self-description that raises the suspicion that he, she, or they is or are in reality a Trojan Horse designed to discredit all who claim to defend science. I could not reach a conclusion as to whether or not this self-description was written satirically, because it is so perfect a send-up of the most extreme scientism — "scientism" being the quasi-religious belief that contemporary science is the place to get true answers to everything." Aarghdvaark (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
If Hank Bauer is complaining about ScienceApologist, then SA must be doing something right. Change my !vote to unblock at once!. :P MastCellTalk18:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unrestricted unblock based on the obvious problem of sockpuppetry. John a few edits above does a really good summation of why. Having said that, I wouldn't mind the standard offer being extended, as John said above. Anything else would, unfortunately, indicate we are willing to let certain editors violate rules without real consequences, and I think that would be a very very bad precedent to set. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I would perhaps personally be open to allowing some sort of limited return, such as perhaps allowing him to edit only in a certain, predetermined, range of articles, or under mandated editor review, which might allow him to edit talk pages but not articles themselves, or some similar measures. Beyond that, if he's looking, maybe one thing Science Apologist might consider in the time until the standard offer comes into play is to maybe generate lists of articles found in reference sources, like I have started with a few pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles. I think that having such pages available, indicating what reference and other highly regarded sources cover what topics, might in and of itself be extremely useful in lots of arguments, and, honestly, speaking from experience here, if it is four months until the standard offer becomes an option, he might still be working on his first such list then, although, with luck, he might be closer to being finished than I am with some of the similar pages I've already started. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your initial comment, John, we already bend the rules or excuse violations for certain editors in light of mitigating factors. You yourself have argued at great length for exemptions and special treatment for specific editors, based on your assessment of the quality of their contributions. It's not a matter of setting a precedent, because the precedent has long since been set - a process to which you've contributed. It's just a matter of whether this particular editor's potential upside warrants another chance. MastCellTalk19:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
True, and I am actually rather much in support of keeping editors who are facing potential sanctions. And, actually, I also argued for keeping this particular editor around in the past as well. I believe that there are differences though between trying to keep someone who is currently here still around, and lifting a block ban that has been put in place already. I do think that, once the axe as fallen, as it were, we are more or less bound to adhere to it, barring special circumstances or some sort of limited ban liftings as I have proposed in the past. And, if SA is reading this, regarding the second point, if you (or anyone) can find reference or textbook or similar sources that deal extensively with pseudoscience, bad science, and related topics, believe me, having some sort of index of the best of the existing sources out there on various topics is I think something that will help resolve a lot of disputes, and might also help in the creation of more directly relevant content. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose (11) - GregJackP, Someone not using his real name, Binksternet, A Quest For Knowledge, Kww, T. Canens, Jtrainor, John, Errant, Aarghdvaark, John Carter, Lord Sjones23
Standard offer (10) - Gaijin42, Basalisk, Beeblebrox, Hut 8.5, Beyond My Ken, Nick-D, GiantSnowman, Lukeno94, Snowolf, SamuelTheGhost
I have clarified my !vote. I support standard offer, but do not oppose a straight unblock with a short leash if that is the general consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
My comments are incorrectly tallied. I stated that no socking in 6 months would mean that it might be discussed, not that it should be granted. I am straight in the oppose camp. SnowolfHow can I help?20:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock; pseudoscience masquerading as true science is one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia currently. Unblocking this editor will help fix that, regardless of history, and well certainly be a net positive IMHO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Questions for SA I would appreciate hearing SA's answers to my questions, and I would like SA (not somebody else) to answer in their own words. @Previously ScienceApologist::
Can you please explain to us what happened the the last time you were allowed to edit Wikipedia what went so horribly wrong that it required your ban?
How do you plan to avoid such mistakes in the future?
Can you also provide evidence of collaborative editing on another Wiki website?
These are pretty simple, straight-forward questions that anyone seeking an unblock of this nature should be able to answer. Failure to do so will mostly like be seen as more evidence to deny your request. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
A question for A Quest For Knowledge - can you show or tell me where you've edited collaboratively on this project - and/or give some indication of collaborative encyclopedia-building? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock. Generally good contributions from someone who desires to make good contributions. bd2412T03:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Has SA really stopped socking? There is an IP edit [13] which is from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which is where SA now works, and Plasma cosmology is a page he has edited and socked on many times in the past. It would be a stupid thing for him to do, but SA has previously shown complete contempt for editors, Wikipedia rules, and even the sensible thing to do. It is the sort of ironic thing he would enjoy doing: sock, whilst appealing against a ban because of his socking. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
So, ..., he's a wikipediholic. He has made a promise to do no more (unsigned) IP edits if unblocked. I say, take him at his word, give him rope, I don't see great risk to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
So, ..., he gets blocked for socking, continues to sock, and you are in favour of unblocking him because he promises to do no more socking if unblocked? This is really weak and sets a very bad precedent, and most organizations have to follow precedent to show that they are not discriminating against people (or editors in our case). I realise some people think him a star editor, but the point is the rules need to be applied especially to those people. Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not the point; the point is the rules are supposed to be ignored if they prevent us from improving Wikipedia. Not sure who started the canard that people are saying SA should be unblocked to stop him socking (thus setting a terrible precedent of "rewarding socking") — Nick D, was it? — but it doesn't become any truer for being repeated. If you look at the unblock arguments above, you'll find the main reason people support unblocking SA is that we want his help defending the quality of the encyclopedia from fringe POV-pushers such as yourself. Nobody expects you to be in favour of that. Bishonen | talk13:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC).
Hmmmm, I thought that IAR was repealed a few years ago when it was decided that besides being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is also a Big Brother contest where people get thrown out, can get let back in etc. etc. based on ad hoc social rules. Count Iblis (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock mainly per MastCell. I am also inclined to believe the CheckUser results (Edit: I'm not a CheckUser, so I only know the CU details that were discussed on-wiki), and I consider socking one of the worst offenses on Wikipedia. But as others have noted, the unblock will likely be a benefit for the encylopedia, and he has agreed to stop socking, thus WP:IAR. The unblock can come with restrictions if we decide that (it could be even something like "you may only comment at WP:FTN" if anyone finds the support for that) and if it turns out we're wrong then a quick reblock will follow.
For the record, I haven't really made any points that weren't already mentioned above. However, I object to the attempts to votecount and this pushed me to comment. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock, I'm still concerned there may be some gaming and battleground efforts, but the concern isn't large enough to expect things to go so wrong we need to uphold this block to protect the 'pedia. In the tradition that CU information is never revealed, I can't say anything about socking issues. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: after reading the above, my instinct is to just close this discussion and unblock, which would be exactly the sort of thing WP:IAR is there for. Instead, I'll just point out that a lot of those opposing are confusing "socking" (using more than one account to sway discussion or otherwise cause multiple-personality mischief) with "evading a block while trying to do something you (rightly or wrongly) consider constructive", which is what Mr. Apologist apparently has been doing. "Socking" is extremely disruptive to consensus-oriented communities (and otherwise just plain annoying on web forums and such), and curtailing that sort of disruption is one of the reasons we need to have checkusers around the place (the other reasons being spambots, deranged yet computer-savvy vandals, etc.).
OTOH, and in all fairness to those opposing, I don't know why the guy was blocked in the first place. It's probably a good idea to include that in the first paragraph of the unblock request, since eyes tend to easily glaze over on these noticeboards. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 21:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
He was blocked for evading a topic ban from the area and threatening to continue to evade said topic ban. That topic ban was subsequently extended to indefinite and would still be in effect unless we agree here to lift the topic ban as well. So far, people are just talking about the block and SA is being coy about the topic ban on his talk page. As the topic ban was a discretionary sanction it would have to be lifted through a community decision or an appeal to AE or ArbCom.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
SB_Johnny; no, socking includes block evasion. Explicitly so :) But that's by the by; the point is he is lying, and not even well, about recent block evasion, and so does not deserve the respect and trust required to unblock. IMO. --Errant(chat!)00:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Considering SA is known for his work on fringe theories, perhaps you may wish to clarify your position on fringe theories and pseudoscience TDA? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
My only concern here is that there is an elephant in the room being completely missed by most. At first my inclination was to vote unblock, but then I saw that he was blocked for evading a topic ban that is still in effect and feel it is unwise to unblock him without having the topic ban addressed in the appropriate manner. That is all there is to it. Unfortunately, most people have not made any comment about that topic ban, presumably because you did not mention it in your opening comment. I imagine that is because you did not get yourself sufficiently informed as indicated by your mistaken claim that he has been blocked for four years for socking, rather than the two years for which he has actually been blocked. Appeals that begin without all pertinent information being provided should not be decided on until everyone participating is clear on the situation, especially if there is also significant misinformation in the appeal.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.04:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
...or perhaps not. Still, you at least answered a question that hadn't been asked, and thank you for that. For my part, having examined quite enough of the situation to be satisfied that I understand it, I'll clarify my position on the "topic ban". It should be removed, if it is indeed determined that it still stands (I don't believe it does, having already expired, from what I can see, and it seems pretty wikilawyerish to me to think otherwise). As Reyk points out, there will be many eyes on his edits, and I trust the community to do the right thing. Begoontalk05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The topic ban was made indefinite when SA got blocked. If you are going to snark at someone you should at least make sure you read what the other person has already said.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.05:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Goodness, sorry you took my comment as snarky. I didn't intend to upset you, just giving my view. I disagree with your reading of the situation, but you're obviously keen to believe the topic ban should still apply, and you're obviously entitled to argue for that. Peace and stuff. Begoontalk05:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose any claim of supporting science until such a time as he realises that participating in the Wikipediocracy fun-time of Scientology, fringe science, and just general craziness, is a total opposite to whatever he claims to believe in. Please come back when you learn enough to stay away from people like that! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock – SA was an excellent contributor of science material and was almost always correct on fringe material but struggled with POV-pushing and being frustrated into incivility. I hope he has learned that being goaded into incivility is unhelpful as it allows POV-pushers to play the victim. His contributions are valuable and I would welcome SA's return to the editing community. EdChem (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Unblock per Reyk; there will be so many eyes on his editing that I don't believe there is any chance of previous issues occurring without being noted straight away. We've nothing to lose here, I believe. Black Kite (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I'm unclear whether this thread is actually supposed to be closed or not, I'm commenting here under the assumption it is not even though either way it doesn't look like it will make a difference but I think it should be said. It seems clear that SA generally has excellent contributions. However he also has behavioural problems in working with editors acting in good faith but who's views he disagrees with that cause problems in a collaborative encyclopaedia where we generally aim to welcome people who are able and willing to work constructively. In fact, as I and others have noted before, he his contributions at times cause people who are sympathetic to his POV to feel far more sympathy for the other editors. While many of his contributions are very welcome, not all of them are, and his apparent inability to stop socking (and yes, editing when you're blocked is socking) suggests he will still have problems when he returns, whether his socking is because a lack of self control or an unfortunate belief we can't do without his edits. While I'm aware SA denies some of the socks are his, I ultimately trust the CUs more than a I trust him. (In fact as others have noted and I assume most are aware, his claiming it's not him of course makes it harder to trust him if we believe the other side, as is always the case with this sort of thing.) The thing which pushed me from a weak oppose or neutral to a clear cut oppose (and why I decided to comment here even though the uncertain status of this thread) is as I also noted in the arbitration request, I also have concerns that he seems to think extending the blocks for socking was intended as a form of punishment which suggests an unfortunate fundamental lack of understanding of our blocking policy and more importantly, a lack of understanding why his socking is harmful and would lead to the community not to trust him. In that discussion User:IRWolfie- suggested that SA would not be fluent in policy because of their absence, but this is missing the point since 1) As I indicated, the bigger problem is that he doesn't seem to understand the harm his socking causes both to Wikipedia and to people's willingness to trust him to edit here, this is not a matter of policy. 2) Our policy has not changed, blocks haven't been intended as punishment for a very long time (for ever?), way more than 4 years. 3) If he is going to sock, he should at least try to understand our policies, particularly the policies that relate to his editing like why we do not want him to sock, and why we are likely to extend his block if he socks. 4) Even if he had not do so in the past, I would expect him to try to at least have a basic understanding of our policies particularly policies that relate to his past behavior and to blocks before he asks to return. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This has been open since Aug. 5, so I will be closing this now. I have read through it once, but it will take a bit of time to sort through everything and evaluate consensus. I will post my results as soon as I have reviewed all the material. — Ched : ? 02:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing this situation I have decided that community consensus is to unblock the current account of User:ScienceApologist which is now User:Previously ScienceApologist after 5 days of discussion. Those who oppose the unblock do have valid reasons in the history of the account/person in the sense that there were difficulties, and even to the extent of policy violations in the past. However, there is not only overwhelming support for an unblock in numbers, but there is also solid reasoning even if it lies in the WP:IAR due to the ability to provide content to the project. There seems to be little dispute that SA contributed quality content in the past. I will be unblocking after posting this notice. My rationale is listed below, and it is quite possible that I've missed some individual items; but I think the bulk of it speaks for itself. I came. I saw. I read. I've made my own determination, and will respond to any complaints as time permits.
support unblock
IRWolfie (proposed), Bishonen, Sceptre, Floquenbeam, Tarc, Begoon, Count Iblis (with restrictions), Giano, Reaper Eternal, MONGO, Vsmith, Dr.K., NorthBySouthBaranof, Sluzzelin, Dominus Vobisdu, HiDrNick!, Noformation, SmokeyJoe, Cas Liber, MastCell (with some reservations), Moriori, LeadSongDog, Reyk, Volunteer Marek, Hahc21, Alex Bakharev, Mathsci, Stanistani, Anthonyhcole, Agathoclea (with eyes on), John lilburne, StringTheory11 , LuckyLouie (with short leash), bd2412, Arc de Ciel, Martijn Hoekstra, EdChem, Black Kite, Nathan Johnson . (45)
oppose/ keep blocked
Beyond My Ken, Nick-D, GiantSnowman, Someone not using his real name, Binksternet, Lukeno94, A Quest For Knowledge, Snowolf, Kww, T. Canens, Jtrainor, Errant, John, Aarghdvaark, John Carter, Lord Sjones23, Unscintillating, Demiurge1000, (18)
comment
UltraExactZZ, TenOfAllTrades, Gaijin42, Basalisk (leaning toward keep blocked without further assurements), Beeblebrox (wants CU), Hut 8.5 (favors block), Errant (possible with an understanding), The Devil's Advocate, SamuelTheGhost, Cla68, ImperfectlyInformed (neutral), Aarghdvaark, SB_Johnny (understands both sides),
For the record, although I gave only a qualified support of an unblock above ("I support any unblock appeal from SA that includes a brief statement ..."), my qualification was satisfied in a subsequent discussion at SA's talk, so I support the unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The socking policy is a complete joke. It needs completely rewritten. If someone wants to edit you can't stop them. We have all these people creating socks and all these people chasing them. It's a never ending cycle with the policies we have in place. In cases such as this, it's best to let them have the account they want and keep an eye on them. I support this unblock. PumpkinSkytalk11:01, 10 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments11 people in discussion
Posting here because I know that many administrators, and other editors who watch this page, use Gmail for their Wikipedia e-mail accounts. Please feel free to cross-post this as appropriate.
Within the past two weeks, I have noticed that a large percentage of my WP-related e-mails, mostly from mailing lists but also including individual messages, has been directed by Gmail into my spam folder rather than my inbox. I discovered this when I didn't receive an important message that someone had forwarded to one of the lists, and on checking my spam, found dozens of messages that were not actually spam. I know that many other users have encountered the same problem recently.
If you have a Gmail account, you should check your spam folder to see if it contains any messages you want to read. If you have sent an e-mail to a Gmail address recently that hasn't been answered, this may be a reason why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason seems to be that many Gmail users have been marking messages from Wikimedia mailing lists "as spam". Gmail tracks every instance of a Mark as spam button being pressed, and uses the data to train its Bayesian filters; the tipping point was recently reached for lists.wikimedia.org, and now Gmail treats WMF lists as a spam threat. To cut a long story short, the only way to stop this from happening in the long term would be for you to select all the WMF list messages that are in your spam folder, and to then hit the Not spam button. AGK[•]15:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I keep on top of my spam folder and haven't had a single WP-related e-mail in there - but probably simply because nobody is e-mailing me :( GiantSnowman16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this notice, I had a few messages in there, including one asking me to confirm addition to a mailing list; now I know why I haven't received anything from the mailing list.--SPhilbrick(Talk)17:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
As a note - you can create a Gmail filter for the To: address for each mailing list, with the property set of "Never mark as spam", which will prevent this from happening. I had this for most but not all of my WMF list subscriptions, and as far as I can tell the ones I already had set that way were still delivered OK, but many of the others didn't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There's something I'm not understanding here. Do people really first join WMF mailing lists and then mark the messages they get from them as spam? It sounds kind of insane. Like first buying groceries and then stuffing them in a trash bin on the way home. [Thinks about it.] Well, I suppose if you join a WMF mailing list you're most likely already insane anyway, so why not. Bishonen | talk20:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC).
The Google spam filter is tagging the incoming WMF mailing list emails as spam and jettisoning them into the spam folder. As many critical emails are being missed, in the oversight and checkuser mailing lists for example, it's important to note the issue so others are aware that there is a problem. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots20:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, that is... weird. Could the Foundation maybe get in touch with Google, and see if they're willing to tweak the algorithm for us? Companies like Google have a long history of making special exceptions for the WMF when it comes to these things; and I imagine Google doesn't want to be in the position of disrupting the operations of projects it has a strong symbiotic relationship with (i.e., they give us loads of money, and also use tons of our data). (Pings @User:Philippe (WMF), User:Mdennis (WMF), User:Jalexander) — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block)20:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow I'm glad you all said something. I just checked and I had 6 messages (2 from today) in the Spam folder. Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago55 comments21 people in discussion
Tim has lifted the topic ban and made it retroactive to the time of SA's unblock. Now all those adorable ducks are in a cute little row. Go forth, my child, and sin no more.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.02:28, 11 August 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.
Concomitantly with the block, User:Timotheus Canens had imposed an indefinite topic ban [14] on Science Apologist's editing of pseudoscience and fringe science topics. The discussion recently closed on this page only addressed the issue of unblocking Science Apologist. Judging by the edits of Special:Contributions/Eliminatesoapboxing, which two check-users said it shared a residential connection with Science Apologist, it seems rather obvious that Science Apologist intends to edit the areas from which he was topic banned. Please discuss below if the indefinite topic ban still affecting Science Apologist should be lifted or not. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It's clearly a violation of their topic ban. There's no other way to spin it. That last thing you would want to do after being unblocked for repeated socking offenses, is to violate your topic ban. But that's apparently what's happened. Personally, I'd rather give SA an opportunity to self-revert. If he wants to appeal his AE topic ban, he should file a request at AE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Quite a few technical violations of policy by Science Apologist have been forgiven by the community in the unblock discussion above, so I think it would be more useful if this discussion focused on whether his topic ban should be lifted or not rather than delve on the most recent minor infraction. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Quest for Knowledge, I'm confused. The account was blocked as a sock, and SA was recently unblocked by community consensus. Why would we add a new sanction now for something that one of the socks did some time ago? Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The charges here and on SA's talkpage that he has now violated Timoteus Canens' old topic ban are simply wikilawyering, as can be seen from the AN discussion which led to SA being unblocked above. As I pointed out on SA's talkpage when The Devil's Advocate and A Quest for knowledge tried there to re-ignite their much-ignored attempt to raise the topic ban above, a majority of the people who weighed in on the unblock discussion were asking for SA to be unblocked precisely so that he could again become a bulwark against POV editing by fringe and pseudoscience zealots.[16] While the topic ban wasn't mentioned much in the discussion (except by The Devil's Advocate, who went on about it rather, yet failed to interest anybody), it goes without saying that an unblock based on that discussion includes a quashing of the topic ban. Nothing in the discussion suggested that we were working up to saying something like "Welcome back, we really want your help, but you must not touch the areas that we want your help with." This horse was dead from the start. I disagree with Someone not using his real name that there's any need to start whipping it all over again. Bishonen | talk19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC).
There is no active topic ban to be lifted. Let me quote the very start of the unblock discussion: "What conditions, restrictions, or topic bans was he under prior to his block/ban, and would there be any such restrictions if he were unblocked?" -TenOfAllTrades, me: "The initial block was for 3 months per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_sanction_ScienceApologist. That has since expired. New restrictions are up for discussion here, so I can't answer that question." No sanctions were agreed on in the discussion, and it was for just the unblock. Now he is unblocked, that is all. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, TenOfAllTrades asked a question, that is not a determination. Secondly, after I stated the above, that any restrictions were up for discussion, we had the discussion, where people suggested SA should be unblocked precisely so that he can continue to edit in the area of fringe theories. No restrictions were agreed upon. The summary does not mention any restrictions on the unblock, TDA got no traction in pushing that. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:
(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or
(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.
Even though I opposed SA's unblock, I will say that there should be no new topic ban imposed without community consensus, and it is simply common sense that any old topic ban expired when the indef was lifted. GiantSnowman20:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement Topic Ban (edit conflict) The topic ban was imposed under the auspices of arbitration enforcement. As such, it may only be over turned following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). (See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions) While the unblock discussion could arguably relieve Science Apologist of a topic ban imposed as an unblock condition, or via ordinary discussion, it is insufficient to over turn an Arbitration Enforcement Topic Ban. The Ban did have some conditions that could effect the duration, but absent it expiring under its own terms, the Ban must be considered still in force. If anyone wants to, they are free to start a focused discussion to overturn the topic ban. Monty84520:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Read the unblock reasons, many cite that they want him to be working on fringe theories as their reason. No restrictions got any traction in the discussion. We just overturned the block that came at the same time as the topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of those supporting unblock actually recommended the opposite, for example:
Unblock per the above, the discussion on his talk and for the good edits to technical articles since Sept. '04. Per his rather problematic block log, I'd suggest he avoid the problem areas: focus on the science and avoid the fringe. WP is a bit different than 5-8 years ago. Vsmith (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, but the block was explicitly declared to be a 1 year AE block followed by a regular indef block. The regular block was overturned. Overturning an AE action must be explicit. Reasoning that its the logical result of another discussion just isn't enough. Monty84520:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone please point me to the exact language of the topic ban under discussion. What, exactly, are the parameters of the topics that it is supposed to cover? Does it cover policy pages or discussions, or just articles in a particular area? bd2412T20:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that I have seen. The only language in that section relating to the scope of the topic ban is the reference to "articles that are within the scope of your topic ban, namely, pseudoscience and fringe science". However, I would like to know where the scope of this topic ban is actually defined. Where was it first imposed? I can't tell from reading that whether the editor subject to such a ban is definitively prohibited from commenting in policy discussions, or even on talk pages. bd2412T21:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
And the arbitration committee then handed it to the community to decide, which suggests the issue as far as they were/are concerned is vacated. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The final status of Arbcom’s response to SA’s recent ban appeal is here: [19]. Note that two of the arbitrators talked about his ban appeal, and proposed handing it to the community. A third had an opinion that was decline per one of those. A fourth just said “refer to AN”. My take on this is that Arbcom handed the appeal of the topic ban to AN as well as the block appeal. So, when AN unblocked SA with an expectation that SA would return to editing science, fringe science, and pseudoscience articles, the topic ban was undone. Cardamon (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe that an editor is entitled to clear notice of the parameters of a restriction before being punished for an action claimed to fall within those parameters. From reading the various different discussions of this topic ban, I do not think that it clearly applies to an edit to a discussion occurring in project space. There is a vast difference between making contentious article edits, and presenting ideas and opinions in a discussion, and I think we should be extremely hesitant to read an explicit ban on the former as imposing the latter. bd2412T22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the topic ban remained indefinite despite the unblock; that the unblock discussion falls short of the threshold required for overturning an AE action; that the committee did not "vacate" the topic ban sub silentio contra Casliber; and that the topic ban applies clearly to edits in project space (the parameters of the ban was set by Sandstein with a reference to WP:TBAN). Nonetheless, since a majority of the community seems to be of the view that it's best to apply WP:ROPE here, I'll not stand in their way. The topic ban is lifted with retroactive effect to the time of the unblock. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
"Best to apply WP:ROPE here.... The topic ban is lifted. User:Timotheus Canens. 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)". This is the right way to move forward today. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no topic ban There is no topic ban in place because the unblock was under the assumption that he would be free to edit in that area, since that was precisely the reason many gave for unblocking him. TDA attempted to get the topic ban set on SA, but this was rejected. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban still in force. Insofar I did not see explicit community consensus to lift it. The lifting of the topic ban has not been noted in the summary given by the admin closing the unblock discussion. In the unblock discussion, a few editors clearly said they support an unrestricted return to editing, but even among those supporting unblock several have equivocated about subjecting him to "appropriate restriction" and similar recommendations for him to stay away from the fringe topics. Most editors participating in the unblock discussion did not address the topic ban either way. So there is no clear consensus. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
QUOTE. "The one year topic ban stands as enacted" was posted by User:Wordsmith on 19 January 2011, two years and six months ago! One year does not mean infinite/indefinite or at the pleasure of people JPS has pissed off over the years. Moriori (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The topic ban was later extended to indefinite a few days later due to socking and explicit promises to evade it [20]: Enough is enough. I'm blocking this account indefinitely, the first year of which block is made under the authority of WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions and subject to the normal restrictions on reversal noted in the template above; furthermore, under the same authority, I'm extending your topic ban indefinitely.Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
You might have included this: "This block will be lifted, and the topic ban reset to its original expiration date, when and if you provide credible reassurances that you will not engage in tactics designed to circumvent, evade, or game your topic ban.". Does this have any relevance here?--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N21:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
In looking through the editors talk page history it does indeed look as if the editor has "provide credible reassurances", but I will leave that up to the Arbcom enforcement to decide if that indeed sets the topic ban back to it's original time period or if the Unblock discussion in any way provides such a reset.--MarkJust ask!WERTEADR/N21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, as I already noted somewhere further above, we are eagerly waiting for Timotheus Canens to express his view on this. He can obviously lift the topic ban in an unambiguous way, which would immediately put this matter to rest. Alternatively, we could have the topic ban lifted by the community in an unambiguous way... Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this another !Vote? Holy crap. I usually steer clear of drama like this, but it seems a wee bit overzealous to attempt to nail the guy on his very first edit. IMO, the overwhelming majority of unblock votes assumed he'd be an asset to the 'pedia as an editor of science and pseudoscience articles. Any formalized restrictions (e.g. 'short leash', which I used as a metaphor for zero tolerance for future socking) need to come from the unblocking admin or from T.Canens who has yet to give us the benefit of his opinion on the matter. Until then I suggest you hat this section to prevent further pointless squabbling. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There cannot be a topic ban because the original one was nonsensical. It states that the indefinite topic ban will stay in place "until you provide credible reassurances that you will not engage in tactics designed to circumvent, evade, or game your topic ban" at which point he would be topic banned for a year. In other words, "you're indefinitely topic banned until you tell us you'll abide by a topic ban, and then you'll be topic banned for a year". The topic ban was of course moot because of the block, and therefore this contradiction was not looked at closely. Furthermore, the whole thing was predicated on the indefinite block that could only be reversed by community consensus. Since this has been done, the lesser issue of the topic ban must surely also be vacated. This looks very much to me like editors who did not get their own way on the unblock request trying to find another method of stopping SA from editing, and it doesn't reflect well on them. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the way one could read that is that if we take Science Apologist's unblock as "credible reassurance", he is still topic-banned for one year starting from the moment of his unblock. My understanding is that evasion of bans normally pushes the expiration date forward not backward. I suppose Timotheus Canens did not expect the indef block to last longer than the topic ban. But I can see how one can interpret what Timotheus Canens said as the topic ban being already lifted (because the original expiration date is already in the past), provided that the unblock is considered "credible reassurance". Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Your interpretation of Tim's comments regarding the indef block lasting longer than the topic ban and the ban already being lifted is fair. I was thinking about the same thing. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις21:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I largely agree with Black Kite on the phrasing of the block/ban and I would modify his sentence ...at which point he would be topic banned for a year. to ...at which point he would be topic banned for a year but that year has already expired. I recently made similar arguments on SA's talkpage. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Further discussion is pretty much pointless until we hear from T. Canens. The fact that even though he was "eagerly awaiting" to hear from T. Canens but went ahead and started this discussion anyway does not reflect well on the OP. Too much "eager", and not enough "awaiting". I'm having a hard time seeing it as not disruptive. Agree that this discussion be closed until we hear from T. Canens. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not forum shopping. Cas Liber made a statement above that ArbCom has vacated the topic ban. But I don't see where they have done that, so I have asked for a clarification about their actions in the proper venue. Thanks for assuming good faith. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course, it isn't. But then why was this issue discussed as if it is? The outcome of the discussion is much more an affirmation that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy than anything having to do with dealing with problems SA will likely have in the pseudoscience area and what (if anything) to do about that. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Karl Popper would have tried to gain an understanding of the system we have here based on the assumption that the rules we are implementing here are likely designed to solve certain problems. Interestingly, you can get to Karl Popper from WP:IAR in just two steps, step one, and step 2 :). Count Iblis (talk) 00:09, 11 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Maybe I'm wrong here; if so, please give me a hint.In DE:WP, I'm using the name ″Freud″ for nearly eight years, so I want to use the same name (it's my real name, too) in the EN:WP. The ″create account″ function tells me the name is already in use, but there is no user:Freud. Is there a way to get this name? I'm also using it worldwide at Commons for uploading pictures. Thank you. --2003:65:EE2B:4A00:90DD:E20C:CA39:B4FA (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Freud made two contributions: he edited Template:Ph:Starting a new page and created The Whole Site, both in late 2004. The template got deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates (his edit to the template got removed almost immediately by someone else), while The Whole Site apparently got deleted as web-based nonsense (see speedy deletion criterion A7); its whole contents were "The Whole Site" is an internet catch phrase often used by stupid people in message board settings. It denotes that the entire community (not half, or the majority) feels hatred and bitterness towards a better poster, and therefore is the most moronic phrase in message board history. Since the user doesn't have any contributions to active pages and did nothing except two pieces of vandalism nine years ago, I can't expect that you'll have problems. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
Previous admin action was at 21:30, 96 minutes prior. Admins only need to edit the page to decline requests or leave comments, the bot handles removing blocked editors. Monty84523:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk·contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk·contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
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 going to create this as a redirect to Reichsmark. Is there a technical reason why this is blacklisted, perhaps not being able to have more than one special character in a title? 8ty3hree (talk) 03:14, 12 August 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 understand that this discussion is archived, and I am not modifying it. But it seems to indicate that a Redirect from ℛℳ is disallowed, yet I see that Redirect ℛℳ exists! Am I missing something? David Spector (talk) 13:52, 13 August 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.
Hi,
I made a page about an Italian artist named Saro Tribastone in my sandbox. My user name is Urva222. After finishing the article, I moved it to the address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saro_Tribastone
Now, it shows up well on this page. But when I delete any content in my sandbox, the content on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saro_Tribastone also gets deleted. Why is it so? Then how can I make another articles without deleting the content from sandbox? And how to make the Saro Tribastone page permanent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urva222 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was reading the Xbox one page and this came up.
The xbox likes to have intercourse with men beacause it is gay.'
I found this to be inappropriate as young children may be looking at the page, therefore please can you remove it immediately.
Well, this isn't really the place to request this sort of thing, but it was removed almost instantly (info that blatantly disruptive is almost always removed on such a high profile page) and I've blocked the user for being a vandalism-only account. Should be taken care of. Sergecross73msg me12:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I could still see it, and had to clear the article cache to make it go away. Everything should be okay now. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 13 August 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.
Question about discretionary sanctions page restrictions
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 was a proposed title change at Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement. Currently the "vote" is 5-2 opposed, so it's not very controversial. According to the template, discussion is supposed to last seven days. It's been seven days and about 18 hours. Would an uninvolved admin or senior editor please close the discussion? regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:30, 13 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An arbitration case regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for bringing the project into disrepute, Ironholds is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship.
2.2) For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects, Ironholds is strongly admonished.
3) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
Now, before anyone accuses me of forum shopping or beating a dead horse, let me point out right away that this action is what I was instructed to do (I think this forum would work better than WT:DRV). Basically, four days ago I opened a deletion review for the article Elexis Monroe because I thought it was speedily deleted unfairly (and without warning), and the deleting admin would not restore it. There were !votes of "keep" and "delete" in either direction, and the main concern I had was that the !delete voters seemed to be ignoring that Ms. Monroe passed the relevant guideline (WP:PORNBIO) simply because they didn't like the subject.
At one point, another user made a personal comment about me, and after I responded, another user made an even morepersonal comment about me. I then suggested that people focus on the subject at hand instead of me, and thankfully those kinds of comments ceased, but then User:Spartaz (the admin who closed the DR) suggested that everyone cool off because the discussion was apparently getting too heated. There’s nothing wrong with that suggestion, but I informed him/her that that wasn’t going on anymore.
The reason why I brought up the personal comments is because it seemed like Spartaz used that aspect as an excuse to close the discussion early, which I think was inappropriate for two reasons:
S/he blamed me for personalizing discussions when I'm the one whose personal life was brought into it; and
S/he appears to have a bias against pornography-related articles, as evidenced here.
Now, I understand if s/he is “the regular DRV closer” as s/he claims, but is s/he the only DRV closer? If it were felt that the discussion indeed had to be closed early, it should have been listed at WP:ANRFC and then closed by an uninvolved admin (granted, Spartaz only made comments in this discussion and not an actual !vote, but the aforementioned bias kind of clouds things). In addition, the article itself was then deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, another admin who appears to share that bias (and if people think I’m unfairly accusing other users of having a bias, you’ll notice that said users have yet to actually deny a bias). ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: I merely carried out the DRV result as determined by Spartaz, by re-deleting the article that had been temp-restored for the duration of the DRV. Spartaz apparently forgot to do this, but it was a purely technical necessity at that point. Fut.Perf.☼16:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
As the deleting admin, and a participant in the discussion, I do think it was inappropriately personalised, and that Erpert was partly responsible for that. Hut 8.516:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I mean, when someone says to quit making comments about other editors or they will close the debate, and then Erpert makes another comment about other editors... well, honestly, it looks like a good close to me. Erpert's not entirely to blame (who cares what userboxes an editor has? How is that relevant?), but his edits were part of the problem. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did18:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
As I clearly showed from the diffs above, Spartaz suggested that after that situation was over. And Hut, please explain how I personalized it when comments were clearly made about me first.ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?19:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Spartaz stated - in this diff - that the thread would be closed if personal comments continued. You did indeed state that that problem had ended (here, two edits later), but then almost immediately made another personal comment questioning the motives of editors who disagreed with you (the diff I cited, here). The situation ended when Spartaz closed the debate, precisely as he said he would. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did02:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly right. While Guy1890 began the run of inappropriate personal comments, Erpert continued them, particularly casting aspersions on admins who didn't share his opinions (a practice further on display here). His edits at the DRV are hard to see as anything but deliberate defiance/baiting of Spartaz, whose warning was quite standard. This kind of behavior has marked Erpert's participation in deletion-related discussions for some time, going back at least to here [23], but his behavior doesn't change. We're really at the point where editing restrictions should be considered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ultra, that comment was far from personalizing anything. A question was asked and I answered it; simple as that. (And HW, given your entire talk page, you are the last person who should be talking about editing restrictions.) ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?03:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)`
There. RIGHT THERE. You just did it again. You don't discuss the merits of what HW said, or where he might be mistaken, or that there's some aspect of the situation that he maybe did not examine, or whatever - you jump right to commenting on HW himself. What does HW's talk page have to do with the Elexis Monroe DRV, your conduct thereon, or the price of beans in China? The fact that you don't see how problematic your edits are getting is, itself, problematic. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I don't understand this. First of all, HW said something first and I responded, yet you only said something to me. If you think personal comments are being shot in either direction, you should say something to both people, not just one. But importantly, this thread is supposed to be about the DRV; nothing else. Can we get back to that, please?
That whole thing was, IMO, a mess. First of all, you did personalize it first here but it certainly escalated rapidly and got way too personal resulting in what I saw as unacceptable attacks on you. As Ultraexactzz points out, you've managed to personalize it here too. I realize you feel that the issue is the people, but you need to focus instead on the issues.
That said, there is a broader problem, and that is the people involved. There is a group of editors who feel we cover too much in the way of porn and are pretty vocal about it (dismissing the relevant subject guideline, showing up to AfDs and porn discussions a lot, etc.) There also seem to be a number of folks who would like to see our porn coverage increased and tend to push the envelope a bit (recreating an article deleted 1 year ago when there are no new sources/awards for example). It might be nice to have a DRV (and perhaps later an AfD) on this topic without either of those voices. But this case, even though I !voted to relist at the DRV, was really weak. Nothing had really changed other than the relevant guideline (and it got tightened up if anything). Even if it had been relisted, it seems quite unlikely it would be kept (as I noted in the DRV I'd have !voted to delete given the evidence presented thus far and I'm generally on the inclusionist side of things). So I think the early close of the DRV was reasonable given the heat/light ratio was so poor (mostly not due to you though started by you IMO) and the final outcome (remaining deleted) was pretty clear.
I'd urge you to avoid personalizing the issues in the future, especially at DRV. Make your arguments about the topic, not about the editors. Yes, there are a group of editors who would seemingly prefer to keep as much porn-related material off of Wikipedia as possible. But that's just what it is and attacking them isn't going to help you win your arguments (and will in fact hurt, especially at DRV). Hobit (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I just lost a large edit to an EC - which probably means I went on too long about it. Suffice to say, Hobit nails much of what I would've said. Erpert, you need to comment on content, not on the contributor. At the DRV, Spartaz told everyone (not just you) to stop it, you didn't, and so he closed the DRV. Your complaints here are that 1. Spartaz complained that you personalized the discussion, and 2. That Spartaz should not close the DRV because he/she is biased against pornography. Well, on point 1, you did personalize the discussion, as I showed above. Now, others did so as well, and that's not right either, but that doesn't change your edits. And your complaint on point 2 is precisely the sort of evidence that proves point 1 - you don't say whether the close was a valid interpretation of policy, or whether the result is in line with consensus at the time of the close, but rather you attack the motivation of the closer. And that's a personalized comment on the contributor, not the content, and that's precisely the problem with your edits. And it needs to stop. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I have anything substantive to add to what Hobit, Ultraexactzz and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have already said. DRV does tend to close disruptive discussions early and I gave two warnings on this one before ending the DRV. 3 DRV regulars have looked at my close and seem to think its OK. I can't see that we have anything left to discuss about my conduct here. What does disturb me is that Erbert doesn't seem to recognise that his own conduct was suboptimal and that you cannot win any argument by throwing dirt at those who disagree with you. Please stick to discussing content and policy rather then casting aspertions about the motivations and biases of other users. Thanks. SpartazHumbug!05:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It's amazing how I'm being accused on commenting on contributors instead of content when I'm not only the one who was attacked first, but I even tried to steer the discussion back to the topic at hand. I guess it's everyone versus Erpert after all. I don't even care about this topic anymore. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?06:09, 14 August 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.
These reports should normally go to the Incidents noticeboard; however, I did the needful and blocked for 3 months (pattern vandalism, repeat customer, prior block 2 weeks, fifth block this summer). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 13 August 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 unblock discussion for User:Morts623 was archived without decision. I request that an administrator either closes the discussion and determines consensus, or unarchives for further input. Heymid (contribs) 19:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
If there is consensus to unblock, it's razor thin and based on numbers alone. The recent socking (within last 60-75 days) doesn't inspire confidence, either - and it's a stronger argument against unblocking than any of the arguments I see in favor. I'll defer to other admins, but my read is that there is no consensus for an unblock at this time. No objection to re-opening the thread, but I don't know that it will substantially alter the result. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did02:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
While not an admin, I'd say the case for unblocking is moderately strong given that the socking was apparently just fixing spacing problems etc. per Tiptoety. I have problems holding that kind of a thing against a person. At the least I think it is worthy of a formal close. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
No evidence for a topic ban presented. It wouldn't be right to leave this open any longer given the total lack of evidence. Please better explain the justification for your request next time. Monty84519:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC) I've wrapped up this second, equally baseless, report with this one for neatness. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 14 August 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.
It is time to call for a topic ban on Beeblebrox and the incubator. He is objectively delusional about the topic, as I have shown at WT:Article incubator[WT:Article incubator@2013-08-04T20:58:28]. He has had more than one opportunity to objectively review his comments and withdraw them, but refuses to bring his view in alignment with objective reality. The good news is that his latest attempts today to attack specific articles in the incubator is an admission that his desire to stop the volunteers in the incubator using admin tools with an RfC is not going well. After posting once on his page, he immediately demanded that I not post there, so if someone would be so kind as to notify him I would appreciate it. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
And of course, claiming someone is "delusional" is not a violation of NPA, is it? I have notified Beeblebrox, but I equally have no idea why you have brought this here. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
You cannot possibly think that starting out a thread at AN with "He is objectively delusional" is going to result in a productive discussion. Some will see this as a red flag to attack you, others will see it as a reason to bring up their own pet peeves with Beeblebrox, others (like me) will take it as evidence that there's nothing substative to the complaint and will move on. But nothing productive is going to happen unless you (a) tone it down, and (b) explain what in the world you're talking about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Having had a chance to look at this now, this probably ought to be closed now per WP:BOOMERANG. Unscintillating, you need to, very quickly indeed, explain why you believe a topic ban is required here - with diffs - or it will be closed. I see no issue whatsoever (indeed, Beeblebrox's RFC even has marginal support, although it's probably no consensus). Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
After my WP:AN posting yesterday, Beeblebrox nominated yet another five incubated articles for deletion. In one 8-hour period, he has nominated 7 out of 47 or 15% of the articles in the incubator. One of the articles that was nominated is in the Greenhouse workflow. This stops the work in the Greenhouse. It is not realistic to donate time on articles in the incubator when the existence of the work is volatile, which is why the Greenhouse was shut down during the WT:Article Incubator/2013 June mass MfD. There is currently a discussion at WP:VPP about a case in which an incubated article was deleted without notice or process because of an article created in mainspace. Back to the Greenhouse, unlike Beeblebrox, the Greenhouse process makes an effort to notify involved editors. Thus the post I made at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation is now erroneous. The article has received seven edits by two editors within the last week. Beeblebrox could have joined the discussion on the talk page. Beeblebrox needs to agree to withdraw his seven nominations and agree to disengage from his continuing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior at the incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
So, for everybody's first question "what the hell is the greenhouse?" I will explain for you. The greenhouse is an expansion of the article incubator created and used by exactly one user, (seriously, he is literally the only person to have ever edited it, along with having several conversations with himself on various incubator related talk pages) the one who opened yet another thread about what an evil person I am for trying to take out the trash that has been collecting in that neglected back corner of WP. This nonsenss about a greenhouse workflow is pure fantasy. In his imaginings, all the incubator needs is to be expanded with portals, greenhouses, magic rainbows, etc and it will start functioning properly again. There is absolutely no reason for me to withdraw anything, the community will discuss these items and they may or may not be deleted, or moved to mainspace, or merged, or just kept where they are.
By the way, Mr. Unscintilating, the fact that I told you I did not want to engage in direct discussion with you any longer does not exempt you from the requirement that you inform subjects of discussions you open here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Unscintillating, shouldn't the previous thread that you opened indicate that you are completely out of touch with what is actually valid? There is nothing wrong with nominating stale incubated articles, in fact, this is what SHOULD be done more regularly. We know you don't like Beeblebrox, but don't keep dragging your disagreements to the drama boards. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)07:14, 14 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion
Ordinarily I'd let another close this, seeing as I started it, but since it's been 72 hours and the !vote is absolutely unanimous, this seems uncontroversial to go ahead and close. Therefore: KuhnstylePro (talk·contribs) (and socks) are hereby community banned from Wikipedia, for hoax creation, sockpuppetry/block evasion, and general vandtrollism. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:12, 15 August 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'd like to direct the community's attention to the case of User:KuhnstylePro, indefed for creating an extensive and very clever not-entirely-walled garden of hoax articles, often cut-and-pasted from wikias set up (from the evidence) by the same person for a variety of fake Disney Channel and Frederator Studios shows and Cartoon Network-based video games. This editor - or one/some indistinguishable from him - have, since their block a few months back, been on a sockpuppeting spree, repeatedly creating new accounts, with increasing frequency, to recreate the same hoax articles - sometimes even still with maintenance tags with dates indicating they were lifted from the previously-deleted copy. I know there's the usual "de facto banned" argument to be made here, but a formalisation of a community ban would make it easier, at least from an "all i's dotted and all t's crossed" perspective, to deal with this sockpuppeting hoax creator. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I somehow managed to indef block Flatus I, and rollback his edits, even though he is not yet community banned. These discussions are, as I've said 3 dozen times before, pointless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Let's see. Adds disruptive barnstars Y, Prolific creation of alterntate accounts while blocked Y, Procedural naming of said alternate account in an attempt to rub Wikipedia's nose in it Y. No good can come from this editor until they sit down, take stock of their actions, and make a sincere acknolegment of their faults. Hasteur (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. I'm with Reaper Eternal on this one, though... I support a ban in principle, but don't think it will do anything other than prevent future AN discussions. "Oh, he's already banned? Never mind, then", that sort of thing. I doubt that there is an administrator who would unblock him, under any circumstance. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did19:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Support, as per Ultraexactzzz. Whether it's pointless or not is irrelevant - if it makes it a fraction easier to remove this guy's idiotic "jokes", then let's make it that fraction easier. They're no benefit to the encyclopedia whatsoever. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)21:14, 14 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It's time to close Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. The initial four questions have been answered by large volumes of people, and the ratios are both stable and overwhelmingly lopsided. Activity is slow now, and the activity is in little side-squabbles in the discussion section, not on the main RFC.—Kww(talk) 05:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:RFC states that 30 days is the default and it's been 16 days since the page was created. Due to the sluggish pace of new comments, I think it would be fine to close at some point toward the end of this week. Killiondude (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
My dark and cynical side suspects that WMF is going to attempt to discount the RFC using an argument like "gee golly whiz, we've fixed so much stuff since the RFC opened, we don't think the RFC is valid any more", forcing a new RFC which will tken be discounted on similar reasons, all in an effort to try to claim that they aren't just discounting community consensus. The faster we get things closed, the less chance they have to play around. There's no way that several hundred more votes all in opposition to the existing extremely lopsided votes are going to come in, and that's what it would take to change things.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely, besides there have been relatively few new comments so the RFC seems to have run its course at this point. If we were still getting a volume of discussion then I would say keep it running but that's not the case here. Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
BAN NOT ENACTED
With only one diff from this year and a "fuck it" comment from the user proposing the iban, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 15 August 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 require an IBAN between myself and the administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Since we argued over a year ago on the article on the Ahmad Shah Massoud article he has done nothing but display a pure battlefield mentality towards me. He belittles my contributions, he incessantly attacks me and asks for me to be banned, he has openly admitted to stalking me, he refuses point blank to compromise in any editing dispute, he prefers to go with threats of AE. Proof of his attitude towards me are obvious, but the best example is this, twice I have tried for FA on the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, the second try is now ongoing. The only times FPaS has been to that article is to oppose this. If he had any issues at with this article, should he not have discussed them before? He has no interest in this article, his only interest is in getting at me. I want this stopped. I see no reason at all that an admin can state openly that they will stalk an editor, and not just stalk them but deliberately create issues just to piss an editor off, and for no reason other than a year ago they argued over an article, and FPaS cannot let it go. So I want an IBAN, and it will not affect any "admin powers" as FPaS is already involved. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Now I know you've been around the drama boards more than enough to be aware that if you want to propose any kind of restriction you best come with a stack of diffs that support your position. So, bring forth some evidence or get ready to see this just closed up with no action. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
But here you go, I asked him 28 July 2012 to stop with his stalking, his response tough This after he accuses me of misrepresentation of sources I have always followed the sources, it is why I get so much shit from every one all the time. His only edits to the article I am trying to get to FA is proof of his battlefield mentality. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You've mentioned your drinking enough times yourself, usually as an excuse for your recurrent disruptive behaviour, so it was hardly an unreasonable guess, was it? As for the article, I stumbled across it last year when you were for the first time trying to push it through FAC. I noted a couple of concerns over it, and so I did the same again now that you were trying to push it ahead the second time, as it still has the same kinds of quality issues. In the meantime, I've observed you in about a thousand different POV disputes over various similar issues. I've probably agreed with you about as often as I've disagreed with you, because, frankly, many of your opponents have been even more problematic editors than you are. That doesn't change the fact that your editing is frequently of poor quality. If you don't like people calling you out for that during a quality review such as FAC, bad luck. Fut.Perf.☼21:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for editors/admins to keep an eye on each other if they misuse wikiepdia or misinterpret policies and guidelines. You do seriously though need a stack off evidence to say that they are displaying a " battlefield mentality" towards yourself and not just following the clearly laid out policies and guidelines. --MisterShiney✉21:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Ya well it don't matter now as the FAis getting pulled, so what is the fuckingpoint, I have worked long nad hard on that article, and all I get is shit from him. Fuck it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 15 August 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 to censure personal attacks and harassment re: Peter Sellers article
Latest comment: 11 years ago42 comments9 people in discussion
User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto have established a long-term pattern of personal attacks and harassment against this editor, as a contributer to Peter Sellers. This has made the article an extremely hostile editing atmosphere since those editors began editing last summer, with little ability for others to amend or improve the article since that time. Note that I and another editor had been the primary contributers beginning years earlier.
Considering you and Br'er Rabbit were edit warring at the time and being disruptive, I stand by the comments wholeheartedly. Sadly, to quote from my own words in that diff, the following have become something of a mantra when dealing with you sniping and attacks on the page: "I also think that your continual accusations of WP:OWNership to be an WP:uncivil, unnecessary ad hominem attack without basis or merit and (for the umpeeth time) I ask you to stop throwing them out whenever you happen to disagree with something". Yes, I certainly do still stand by that - even more so that when I first wrote it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
There was no "threat". Polanski was an article Cassianto and I discussed updating, as it's in a rather parlous state. However, because you made the experience on Sellers so negative and toxic we moved onto another article (also now an FA) instead. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where you are getting the "game" idea from. I mention fun, that is all. Funnily enough I edit Wikipedia for fun and enjoyment, which isn't quite the "game" you accuse me of. Others will also note the ongoing accusations of ownership you baselessly throw around too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This was part of the conversation to revert an FA back to your preferred C-class version isn't it? I think that fact itself shows more about your approach to this article's development and improvement than anything else! - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Eeerrmmm.... Not sure exactly what Betty Logan has said that even vaguely constitutes a personal attack there? "Maybe it only counted your 39 'one' votes once, so when a another voter came along and gave it a 5 it averaged out to 3?" Looks like she was trying to explain something to you, rather than throw insults at you... - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
1. There was no personal attack in the thread; 2. Do not EVER delete or the comments of others on a talk page. If you think it's a problem, go to an admin to have the comments struck; 3. There was absolutely no threat at all. You were edit warring up to WP:3RR. I warned you that if you reverted again I would report you: not just acceptable, but necessary as part of WP:ANEW. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Highlighting to someone just how they have turned an article's talk page and history into a toxic soup isn't a PA, and the comments of independent parties below support that this isn't a PA. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
As an onlooker, I seriously don't get what's going on here. WP:NPA states that a personal attack is either "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence," and that "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll look at this, but the first thing I saw from Talk:Peter Sellers was that Light Show is at 3RR due to the repeated removal of comments that, frankly, don't rise to the level of personal attack. Whatever else happens here, Light Show, you really and truly need to stop removing people's comments. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did19:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Purlease. These arn't PA's. Just a complaint from an editor who didn't like the fact that another editor came a long and made substantial changes that improved the article so much it is now FA. --MisterShiney✉19:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I have had my say on the Sellers talk page (which was deleted numerous times by the complainant), so I don't feel the need to defend myself here. Being responsible for co-writing and co-nominating the article which was otherwise wallowing in C-class, and now finding itself as an FA, does not warrant the kind of trolling which the complainant has been doing since its promotion. If protecting the article is such a crime, then I will happily request to block myself! -- CassiantoTalk19:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see any personal attacks in the diffs provided. I do see edit warring from Light show, however. Might not be a horrible idea for Light show to go edit something else for a while - fighting over the infobox, when that seems to have already been settled recently, seems unwise as well. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did20:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you having a laugh, LightShow, considering the bad faith bile you've spewed across the talk page over the last year or so? Considering you have been overwhelmingly obstructive since we started improving the article, it's rich that you're the one complaining. Since we started improving the article, Light Show has consistently
Even after the community had its say about the article and it had passed through FAC, LightShow (or WikiWatcher as he them was) still tried to disrupt the article: thankfully Drmies showed up to put an end to that nonsense. Sadly it didn't stop, and there was even moresniping about the article.
Ever since we started the improvements, we have faced nothing but bad faith nonsense from LightShow against our efforts. It's frustrating and demoralising to have to deal with the endless sniping, carping and negativity. I am always deeply suspicious about accusations of ownership, especially from someone who wants to revert improvements back to their own preferred version: there is more than a touch of hypocrisy involved there I think.
Given his petty trolling of the article over many months, I do wonder if a topic ban imposed on him might be the more constructive thing to do. None of us should have to deal with a disgruntled editor with a grudge of his sort.♦ Dr. Blofeld20:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Wrong place? As was just pointed out elsewhere, this post is on AN, not ANI, as intended. Should I move it all or does it make any significant difference? --Light show (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Nah, this page is fine. We're not really discussing a single incident, but a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior that seems to warrant further review. I am surprised, though, that no one has proposed a topic ban. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm worried that there maybe a conflict of interests if I (or SchroCat for that matter) do it. Is there anyone else who could oblige? -- CassiantoTalk16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a productive idea. Since my last body-copy edit was simply splitting a 350-word paragraph into two shorter ones a few months ago (which, of course, was also undone by SC), that would at least save Schro/Cass click-time. And other than adding a few PD images, the one before that was last year, also deleted. On the other hand, since I'm not fond of climbing 10-foot high walls to work on articles, it seems like the topic wall/barrier is already in place. Not just for me, for anyone, as the edit history proves. --Light show (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
LightShow, your edits were reverted because they were bad. Nothing more, nothing less. Drop the "ownership" accusations: the fact you keep trying to revert an FA back you your preferred C-class version speaks volumes over who has ownership issues. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
While I've issues with SchroCat's ownership tendencies on other articles, I don't think these comments really rank as personal attacks. Discussing differences of opinion on edit decisions can lead to heated disagreements. But I don't see name-calling, trash talking or threats here. I understand your feelings of frustration at not having your own viewpoint be the consensus or being ignored in discussions on Talk Pages but I don't think these examples warrant a topic ban...for either of you. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
FFS, this is not a forum for you to start throwing around unjustified and baseless personal attacks, NJL. Provide evidence or withdraw this ridiculous, unwarranted and unjustified accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? Did you only read the first sentence in that paragraph? I was defending SchroCat and saying that the claim of PAs was not justified. My understanding of her feelings didn't focus on any articles in dispute between the two parties but I just empathizing with her frustration. I don't know how anyone could have taken that expression of sympathy as a personal attack! That's just crazy and being oversensitive. And, Cassianto, maybe we should all submit our comment to you for approval before posting them. And, FWIW, your words against me are definitely not "helpful" at all.
But you've made me think twice about coming to another user's defense in the future. Don't worry, I won't speak up for you again. Let others try taking on that role and see if it comes back to bite them, too. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk00:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for going off-topic but when other editors attack you, I think a rebuttal statement is justified. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk00:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
My apologies for my ill-considered remarks. Wikipedia is not a forum to hash out such issues. I apologize to SchroCat and Cassianto for my sarcasm. If I have issues, I will go to your Talk Pages rather than comment on an AN that is focused on a particular problem I'm not involved in. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk13:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't an attack, it was a point made in reference to your ownership remark and the fact that your comment was so damn neutral, so please stop being so precious. If your idea of sticking up for someone is accusing them of having "ownership tendencies" then I would hate to see what you write about someone when you complain about them! Also, you admit that this ANI is baseless inasmuch that you see "...[no] name-calling, trash talking or threats here", yet go onto say that "I don't think these examples warrant a topic ban...for either of you". What do you suggest then? Carry on as we are? Have you seen the grief SchroCat and I persistently get on the Talk Page from the complainant? That's what I mean by your comment being unhelpful to the discussion. It's like having a shop thief in a court dock who is then told "I don't think banning you from the shop is the answer". -- CassiantoTalk08:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, but when I read "While I've issues with SchroCat's ownership tendencies on other articles" from someone I've only interacted with twice before, it comes across as a rather negative smear, rather than as a "defence" to me. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, LS, reacting to smears isn't going onto the offence at all, and your comment is unhelpful, to say the least. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
To my knowledge no "ownership" complaint has ever been upheld against SchroCat. It is usually the default accusation that is levelled at caretaker editors when they reject an edit to an article, so please let's not refer to it as if it is an established fact that he has previously been sanctioned for. We should focus solely on the remarks and the context they were made in. There are no real attacks here, some of his comments are a bit blunt and dismissive and show Schro's exasperation more than anything, but they were made against an editor who literally advocated reverting an FA class article to its C-class state i.e. nothing productive was going to come out of engaging with such an editor. The two positions are simply irreconcilable. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Light Show's presence on the article is a positive thing if he still maintains his stance that the article should be reverted to its C-class state: it's not going to happen so maybe an enforced break from this particular article will be better all-round. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Betty Logan. That always seems to be the standard response against editors with an extensive history of constructively editing and promoting articles that they somehow think that they "own" articles. Which is just plain not true. But I bet they dang sure have a pretty good idea what a constructive edit is and what improves an article. --MisterShiney✉19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am helping out with a classroom Wikipedia editing project run out of the Rishi Valley School and they have a weekend editing session and for the last couple of weeks they have reported that they get automatically blocked for 24 hours. The school uses a proxy server and the students login individually from multiple terminals around the same time. Having read Wikipedia:Autoblock and IP block exemption rule, it does not appear clear to me as to how this can be handled, do the students have to each request an unblock after the blocking or can I as an administrator grant the select set of students the autoblock-exempt rights? I think a checkuser of the IP under which the following users Hibiscus2581 (talk·contribs) and Yash2944 (talk·contribs) work might reveal why they are getting blocked (how does one know who is causing the collateral damage?). Their sessions begin on Saturday, tomorrow and would be good if they can edit without troubles. PS: I am really not sure what the problem is - for a while, the school IP was 59.90.99.73 (it is not static, but seems to be rarely reset) and that does not seem to show up in the autoblock listShyamal (talk) 09:32, 16 August 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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitration motions regarding Cambalachero, MarshalN20 and Lecen
Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.
(edit conflict) I've blocked them, there really is no other way to interpret that statement other then as an unambiguous legal threat. There is also nothing at the AfD or article that looks libelous. I've also removed about half the article text as a copyvio. Probably could go G12 on the article, but as its already at AfD, I held off on that. Monty84521:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure whether the new account and the original author of the article are socks of each other. In any case, if he really wants the AfD gone, I wouldn't be averse to doing him the favour and courtesy-blank it, if somebody would be so kind and snow-close it and salt the article in return. Fut.Perf.☼21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I am about to head out for the day; but this evening it is my intention to file a SPI on George134 with Bilda1 as the sock and ask for a CU to take a look. LGAtalkedits21:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted the article. The creator has blanked it, and there are no other significant edits to it. I take this as a request for speedy deletion. Bishonen | talk21:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC).
Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion
Closing this because we are not playing this game; the topic ban was legitimately imposed, and there is clear endorsement here from uninvolved individuals - the topic ban is enforced, please do not waste any more editors time. Go do something constructive, and perhaps you can appeal the ban correctly after a reasonable amount of time --Errant(chat!)08:48, 19 August 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 started this on ANI, but was told to bring it here instead. Please don't list "forum shopping" as one of my crimes.....
Jc37 just declared a community consensus to topic ban, based on the now archived discussion at the top of the page. [24] There is no such consensus.
The definition of consensus: "the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute". At least half the editors wanting a topic ban are involved in the underlying dispute. Without them, there is nothing close to a consensus. The short list: FutureTrillionaire (who canvassed, promised to withdraw his support for a ban to make up for canvassing, and then argued to ban anyway), Cliftonian, Quadell, Johnuniq, Not here anymore, Stfg, and Laser Brain. All of these editors have edited the articles covered by the ban in opposition to my edits, or opposed my view prior to the ban proposal.
Regardless of whether you would have supported the topic ban, this is just a matter of respecting the rules. Please uphold the rules. After excluding involved editors, there simply is not a consensus.
There were other improprieties.
The ban proposal only came about because FutureTrillionaire canvassed Jeppiz, in violation of rules. Jeppiz had three times before proposed to ban me. (Nobody else has ever proposed banning me). Sure enough, after canvassing Jeppiz and immediately getting a ban proposal, FutureTrillionaire immediately supported it.
Even aside from all this, there is some odd accounting. Were the editors who supported something other than a ban, such as an RFC or ArbCom, considered as neutral or as opposing a ban?
There is also the editor, Not here anymore, who created an account soely dedicated to opposing my view (and supported a ban).
Finally, it was out of the blue. The last new support for banning was 4 days old. I had done nothing disruptive since then (or, in my opinion ban-worthy prior to that).
I would like an accounting of how consensus was determined in this case. It doesn't make sense. It simply does not meet the official definition of consensus found in the banning policy, which stipulates editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute . Strangesad (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The question was whether the previous community discussion produced a consensus of uninvolved editors, and if so, how. I wasn't proposing a new ban discussion. Strangesad (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Support topic ban. Uninvolved in previous discussion, my reading of which leads me to the conclusion that Strangesad was extremely lucky to be so lightly sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Admins should follow the rules and respect consensus. There wasn't a consensus as defined by the rules on banning. That's it. Strangesad (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Support topic ban. Looking at the material presented in the original discussion, a topic ban is justified. Your analysis here kind of proves the point, honestly - No one is going to say that you are not topic banned merely because a couple of editors are (according to you) involved with the topic. Further, you provide no diffs of any kind to justify discarding the opinions of multiple editors. You make no case other than "They disagreed with me". If your edits were disruptive, as they appear to have been, then disagreeing with you is no handicap. Now, the easiest and simplest way to get out of a topic ban is to edit productively for a few months before asking for the ban to be lifted - Wikilawyering is both frowned upon and generally ineffective at getting topic bans lifted. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did06:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Support topic ban. Uninvolved, looked it over, see if anything a need for stronger sanctions, not weaker, strongly encourage Strangesad to drop the stick and get back to creating content. - The BushrangerOne ping only06:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Support topic ban - As yet another uninvolved editor that took the time to read through that huge block of text, I have to agree that you have been naughty, and you have been given a justified time out. You need to let it go and accept the topic ban; you also need to accept that a much harsher punishment could have been levied and you were lucky enough to have received the WP equivalent of probation. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)06:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Support topic ban, very clear consensus that Strangesad is attempting to Wikilawyer around. Be constructive elsewhere, ditch your POV pushing, stop wikilawyering, and come back in six months. This appeal is utterly frivolous. And I'm completely uninvolved. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)07:39, 19 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Are any admins habitually patrolling unblock requests? I know Bwilkins used to do that a lot, but he's not adminning right now, and there looks like a decent sized backlog at CAT:UNBLOCK. I'm going to review a couple now, and try to remember to look through it in the future when I have a chance. But if every admin who sees this handled one, the backlog would disappear quickly.
The reason I noticed the backlog is that I blocked someone several days ago, and their unblock request has sat unanswered for five days. I obviously can't act on it, and one way or another it should probably be dealt with: User:Poet of Freedom. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dreamliner 2012 (talk·contribs) adds and changes informations in articles without providing reliable sources. I requested him (several times) to stop this, and discuss content disputes in article talk pages. He hasn't answered any of these requests and does whatever he wants. Raamin (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It's important in these cases to be specific and provide some examples ("diffs") of what you consider disruptive behavior. You need to provide some evidence to back up your claim. Liz Let's Talk18:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Example 1, example 2, example 3; please take note that this user hasn't answered any request in his talk page, nor has he taken part in any discussion. He is already blocked in Commons (for the third time) because of copyright violation. Raamin (talk) 07:28, 20 August 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.
If a particular umbrella subject brings in an arbitrary number of hits for Wikipedia (eg: 100,000 hits per year), then Administrators should be forced to seek advice from an expert editor of that subject for advice, before deleting or threatening to delete an article.
This should not be confined only to the main page of the article, but also to peripheral pages.
Wikipedia survives on donations. Therefore, the more hits a particular umbrella subject gets, the more likely it is for Wikipedia to receive a donation. If a particular subject (that brings in over 100,000 hits per year) has important peripheral parts of it removed, donations may not be as great as they could be.
1,000 hits per year then only one admin need to make a decision about notability.
10,000 hits per year then two admin's need to make a decision about notability.
100,000 hits per year then one two admin's plus an expert on that subject need to make a decision about notability.
1,000,000 hits per year, then only experts should make a decision on notability. But the admin's would be the people who would bring this to the attention of the expert.
If an expert is asked to make a decision about the notability of a particular soccer team. Eg: the 'Oi Oi boys' soccer team, sponsored by the 'Hogs Ear Pub' that played twice in a local competition but then gave up due to lethargy. Should an expert be asked about its notability? My answer would be 'yes'. Soccer gets about 1 million hits per year. Therefore the chances of an expert editor being around, who could make a quick decision, should exist. All the admins would have to do is direct an experts attention to the article for deletion. It should be quick and simple.
This idea in improving policy came about due to a conflict between editors and Admins over the new Musashigawa stable page. The admins obviously have no understanding of Sumo, nor do they have any interest in Sumo.
The original article written by User:FourTildes was promptly deleted. And then when rewritten by User:Leveni it was threatened with deletion again. Musashimaru is incredibly famous in the sumo world, and in Samoa and Hawaii. The lack of notability of the Musashigawa stable has come about through the ignorance of the admins and nothing else. In order to stop this type of problem happening again, I hope the above suggestion will be taken into account by those that govern Wikipedia and I hope this suggestion in policy change may evolve into something of benefit for Wikipedia.
I would like to add that the admins are an extremely important part of Wikipedia, as are the editors. I have also decided to not name any Admin's, as I have no qualms with any particular individual. I think the problem has arisen because of policy, that should and will forever change to meet new demands.
Obviously not gonna happen. We decide deletion and notability issues on the basis of treatment in reliable published sources. The number of readers interested in a given larger topic domain is irrelevant in doing so. In fact, if a topic area is popular, it should be all the more expected that high-quality sources ought to be easy to find, so popular topic areas are the last ones that require extra protection measures against ill-considered deletions. Your proposal comes across as an attempt to having your favourite topic area sealed off from the normal processes and setting it up as a domain where the "experts" (presumably you) are free to push their pet articles unmolested by the normal forms of scrutiny. Fut.Perf.☼06:47, 20 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I am really sorry to have to appear on an administrators' board again but I feel the need to inform others about User Minorview, who was blocked in April for sockpuppetting [26]. Minorview was determined to be the same user as Humanpublic, whom Strangesad encouraged to create a sockpuppet account. [27] Minorview resumed activity a few days ago by removing the "sockpuppet user" notice from his talkpage, for which he was warned by an admin [28] and displayed the same aggressive and contemptuous attitude to such warnings [29] as his pal Strangesad, who checked with him to see if he was still blocked just before she was blocked herself [30]. Quite honestly, I would not care about any of this very much were it not for the fact that Minorview's first edit to an article since they resumed activity was this one [31], marked as "minor" which it is not, with an edit summary, "more precise", which it is not,in fact, this is obviously an opening salvo in a resumption of another tendentious and repetitive argument carried on at length back in March by "both" Minorview and Humanpublic before they were blocked, Humanpublic permanently, see talk page archives [32]. They imagine they can re-write the article "Argument from silence" and use it to support their thesis that Jesus never existed. I have posted this here rather than at AN/I because there is already a thread about Strangesad, and also I am not asking for any action to be taken at this point, I would just like assistance from an admin or admins or other editors in watching what Minorview is doing, I do not want to be the only person trying to keep these articles in this area from being disrupted. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a question. Since Minorview is the same person that Humanpublic was [33] and since Humanpublic was " indefinitely banned from editing articles related to faith and religion, broadly construed" [34], can we clarify that this topic ban applies to Minorview? Thanks.Smeat75 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Bans obviously apply to the person. Blocks do not necessarily. For example, two sock accounts, one the master and one the puppet. The puppet may be indefinitely blocked, whereas the master may be blocked for a limited amount of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. I was thinking only of block evasion, where the block is taken to have been applied to the person, and not just to the account blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I am the admin who warned MV about removing the sock template. He's not happy about it and keeps demanding a policy in support of my restoration of the tag. I haven't bothered responding to him, but I believe that WP:BLANKING does not permit a user to remove a sockpuppetry notice, even if the block has expired. The tag serves a useful purpose in the ordering of Wikipedia, clearly documenting that this user abused multiple accounts, even if they have not been indefinitely blocked or are not currently blocked.
As for the issue of the topic ban, I would not feel comfortable sanctioning MV for the edit to Argument from silence. I more or less recall the tortured history of that article and the discussion about it, but my memory (I'm not going to dredge it all up) is that the problem was more with the talk page discussion than with the article itself. The article is not really faith/religion-related. Just because it gives religion examples doesn't make it a religion/faith article. However, the discussion way back when tied in the religion issues, and if MV were to resurrect that discussion, that would indeed be a violation of the ban.
Important note: the ban is not worded as above. HP is "Indefinitely banned from making edits related to faith and religion, broadly construed." (see here and the link to the AN discussion, which has a "clarification") --Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear- I was not requesting or suggesting sanctions for Minorview for that edit to "Arguments from Silence", it was more to clarify for whatever future plans Minorview may have in store. In their identity as "Humanpublic" they made edits to the Jesus article and took part in many discussions on that article's talk page, practically identical to Strangesad's, [35], just for instance, and in case they would like to resume such activity I thought it best to clarify that Minorview is also topic banned from these areas. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Talk:The Dakota#Request for Comment has scared away a couple of admins already, due to its length, and has been open well over 30 days with the last comment timestamped July 27. Despite the length, it comes down to whether to add five words: "also known as Dakota Apartments." If we could ask for an intrepid admin to give it a look and finally close this RfC, I know all the participants would be grateful. With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
Benchertite "closed" my RFC. It was undergoing an MFD with a 2:1 keep:delete vote at the time. I don't think that WP:DELREV is appropriate because closing the page is not the same as deleting it. I have never heard of closing a page. For this RFC regarding WP:FOUR I contacted all 167 past FOUR honorees. I informed them that there are two RFCs. I stated that I think the first is unfair and that proponents of the first think mine is unfair. I asked them to participate in my RFC. Do I have any recourse? Does the page have to remain capped?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if we ignore the number of people you canvassed that message was in no way neutral. "I stated that I think the first is unfair and that proponents of the first think mine is unfair" was not the language you used in the notification. You claim yours is better and that their stops people expressing an opinion. That shows you're being far from objective about this. Given the terrible canvassing that has occurred closure of the RfC was the only option. I've not read the RfC but even if you had worded that neutrally the RfC has been irreparably damaged by the canvassing. Dpmuk (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The closed RfC was much clearer than the first. I disagree with its closure on that basis, while voicing no opinion on canvasing or contamination. GregJackPBoomer!23:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There was no comment about how clear or unclear that pseudo-RFC was, just that any results would have been irrevocably tainted owing to the number of non-neutral "invitations" sent out. Better to close an RFC that will not be able to reach a consensus then to have more drama pop up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that Tony's RfC was "much clearer". To me, the clearer RfC is the one with the briefest question posed. It no longer matters, though, because Tony's canvassing hopelessly poisoned whatever results might have been obtained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs) 23:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I'm uninvolved. I've taken my shot at rolling back this manifestation of edit-warring. I've explained myself on the talk page and in my edit summaries. David in DC (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The initial request was for an uninvolved admin to take a look at this. I'm not an admin, but I think my actions yesterday have created a ceasefire in the edit war. An administratative action, even if it's just a closure, per PantherLeopard above, would now seem in order.
In my view, a simple closure, without at least some comment on the editorial behavior, would be less helpful than getting a bit of administrative guidance. David in DC (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, given the metaphorical sound of metaphorical crickets, would anyone care to opine on this proposal. If so, would you please join the talk page conversation and, if it's agreed to, the proposed collaboration? David in DC (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I consider this a form of harassment, not only is NarSakSasLee asking an administrator to take action against me not through proper channels (like the administraor message board) he is speculating on my religion ( I am not even a sikh, which is irrelevant anyway) Coasttrip (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I consider this a bigger form of harassment; You opened up a disingenious sock puppet investigation on me without informing me. Further you're repeatedly removing of scholarly academic sources (see sockpuppet investigation for proof) has been problematic for the Wikipedia project overall. After the admin warned you not to place in rumour based articles in the "Forced Conversion" article you did it anyway and in many others. This is just an emotional response from you as you clearly want to violate policy by any means necessary and place in incredibly biased statements whilst removing academic sources. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
my apologies for not notifying you however according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations it implies it is optional to notify the accused, that hardly qualifies as harrasment. you are incorrect in your claim about 'rumors' the word rumor was not used in that news story by the way, and dougweller did not issue a 'warning' it is a conflict of interest for an administrator who is editing an article to use his administrative powers to enforce his personal views in an edit dispute, and I did not even revert dougwellers edit, I considered his comments when i edited the other articles
You're being manipulative again. You've done so on the sock puppet investigation page and you're doing it now. You've been on Wikipedia for several years now and you were uncivil enough to prevent me from defending myself at the sockpuppet investigation by not informing me. You're incorrect in regards to civility and etiquette. Further, you know full well that the edit analysing tool shows no pattern between my edits and the IPs. One or two edits does not equate to sock puppetry. Yet you've tried deliberately to make the connection. I have no history editing the articles those IPs have. I've only ever rollbacked or reverted removal of sourced content. Further there has been no religious bigotry. It's quite obvious why you've been trying so hard to remove scholarly sources. And all the evidence points towards the fact that you may be Sikh. I apologise if this is not true but that's what I'm getting from your recent edit spree. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't belong here but at ANI. I was indeed approached by NarSakSasLee who said " My guess is that he's a Sikh given his edit history, and understandably it seems quite an emotive issue for the him/her" which doesn't look like bigotry to me. I have clearly not used my Admin powers but I am disturbed by the fact that Coasttrip has ignored my comments at Talk:Love Jihad#Sikh claims - UK about the use of a Birmingham Mail short piece[40] in various articles there is no evidence in the article of any court case, conviction, etc. I also see Coasttrip making editus such as [41] in several articles, with a rationale " regardless (a journal by a single author from a single study) that selective quote itself is unencyclopedic and not neutral see talk page" (see also the discussion at Talk:Forced conversion. Coasttrip's edits seem to remove a useful explanation of what the author was trying to say. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Concur with where it belongs - if it must be somewhere, it should be WP:ANI, which is for incidents. I'm involved in the discussion on the content (somewhere between the two primary participants here), and I think that this escalation is premature. We should still be in the cordial stage of attempting to resolve the issue and not yet jumping to revert wars and accusations of wrongdoing. In fact, I'd be really interested in seeing if we could skip that later stage altogether and just settle things in stage one. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"Coasttrip has ignored my comments at Talk:Love Jihad#Sikh claims - UK about the use of a Birmingham Mail short piece[25] in various articles there is no evidence in the article of any court case, conviction, etc" a single person does not make a consensus and you did not seek consensus on any the talk pages, before rolling back my edits, , of course you may think your opinion is more important than others and you don't need to gather a consensus before rolling back. Note that much of the love jihad article is based on 'allegations' (how many criminal convictions are related to the 'love jihad' phenomenon and therefore why would a rebuttal be needed in the first place?) the article love jihad and most of forced conversion should be deleted if weere to accept dougwellers new threshold of inclusion
while I may have incorrectly inferred some facts from the article, I disagree any of my edits were in bad faith; they meet the threshold of verifiability for inclusion in the article in question and add context by highlighting a specific incident that claims to be debunked by Katy Sian, by selectively reverting my edits you have helped turn each of those articles les neutral and complete
since dougweller reverted some my edits the exact same paragraph he approves of is duplicated in Islam in the United Kingdom. Sikhism in England, Forced conversion and Sikhism in the United Kingdom - no less than four articles, I did not object to the inclusion of those sources but I felt the paragraph itself was not worded neutrally. I ask you neutral editors if that information really 'belongs' to an article why should it be included in no less than four articles as if it were some overarching all important issue, it seems like the IP editor is promoting a specific author and issue to the detriment of the quality of wikipedia. also speculating about someones personal life is a form of harassment whether you agree with it or not, in fact the fact you approve of NarSakSasLee comments is disturbing, you wouldn't approve of if it were done to you, it wasn't relevant to editing on wikipedia and must be condemned Coasttrip (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not the place for content disputes. If you want to ask neutral editors to weigh in, please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for appropriate avenues. (The IP editor does seem very interested in promoting this perspective, but that's still a content issue at this point.)
I agree that speculation about your religion is inappropriate. That said, the thing to do is ask the other editor not to do that. If they continue, then you seek intervention and do so in the proper forum. :) (If it's a slur or a religious epithet, obviously, that's different. It's not bigotry however to speculate that an editor has a conflict of interest.) NarSakSasLee, please keep in mind that such speculation may have the inadvertent effect of causing others to discount Coasttrip's participation in this area (because they may dismiss anything he says as biased). It's appropriate to ask Coasttrip on his talk page if he has a conflict because of a religious affiliation, if you do so politely, but there can be many reasons for somebody to be interested in a topic without it being personal to them. For instance, I've been working on that article for some time, but I am not from Pakistan, India or the UK, and I am not Muslim, Hindi or Sikh. I just recognize that it's a controversial area, and I'm really interested in helping to keep it neutral.
Really, let's get back to the business of working out the content and save the drama, if we can. It doesn't do any good for anybody. It just makes everybody more unhappy and generates ill-will all around. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Like I said before, sourced content should not be removed; and the fact that he did it multiple times and instead inserted speculative news articles in place of it (which suggests that he's indeed being biased), suggests to me that he is a Sikh who is being emotive because it's his culture that's being looked at closely by scholars such as Sian. It's not my problem if he's offended - I just have reason to believe that he is a an emotive Sikh (otherwise why would he specifically insert news articles about alleged forced conversions, making it look like it's a real phenomena and then obliterating neutrality by removing scholarly views on the subject?). I am not going to assume good faith here given how blatant his actions are (such as by ignoring the admin multiple times), using disingenuous editing summaries and being manipulative all round. I however apologise if he's not a Sikh. But his recent actions have been ringing alarm bells on his neutrality stance, particularly when he removes scholarly sourced material. Also the fact that he opened an SPI sock case on me without informing me over a simple reversion of what I would call vandalism and disingenuous editing on his part screams emotional involvement that he can't handle Sian's inclusion; it all points towards his emotional involvement in the subject. I really do apologise if he chooses to be offended, but actions speak louder than words. However this being said I will not mention this again unless I have to. I will also add that if I do indeed see sourced content being removed and edit warring involving these two (said user and IP) I will interfere to re-introduce neutrality. I've left comments on the Love Jihad page too in an attempt to resolve the issue. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not your intention to come across that way, but you do run the risk of biasing others in presuming that he is not working in good faith to improve the articles, even if his stance on how that's done is very different. That why WP:NPA says "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic." I'm not suggesting that what you said was a personal attack; I don't think it was. It's just not best practice. :) It's not really fair to people to suggest to others that they may be too close to deal rationally with an issue without discussing it with them first. I would agree, though, that the SPI was leaping to conclusions, and he should have addressed his concerns about your note to Doug directly before escalating to an administrator's noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
it is incorrect of you to accept NarSakSasLee's claim that the sockpuppet investigation is related to my concern raised here, I would never use a sockpuppet investigation as a form of revenge, and it is inappropriate to claim otherwise unless you have some pretty compelling proof, I also do not think that sockpuppet investigation should not be discussed here while the case is still open. I did not even mention the sockpuppet case outside of the investigation page, it was NarSakSasLee and others, and It is NarSakSasLee who responded with personal attacks on the SPI page and did not follow clear guidelines on the SPI main page to discuss only the evidence regarding the sockpuppet claim, and yet ironically he claims I am somehow emotionally linked to my edits.
NarSakSasLee claims I removed references, he may need help with the English language if he believes that, as can be seen here for example [42]I added the very inline reference he claims I removed, NarSakSasLee claimed replacing 'academic paper' with 'essay' is biased but an essay is in fact defined as an academic paper, again NarSakSasLee may have problems if English is not his first language
as moonriddengirl points out"speculation may have the inadvertent effect of causing others to discount Coasttrip's participation in this area (because they may dismiss anything he says as biased)" that no doubt was NarSakSasLee's intention, note that NarSakSasLee and dougweller did not gain a consensus before rolling back edits and therefore to accuse me of being biased is to accept the consensus of two editors (who apparently may have a close relationship). NarSakSasLee post on dougwellers page looks more like an invitation to a witchhunt based on speculation, one could claim based on the evidence that NarSakSasLee has a dislike of Sikhs since he jumped to that conclusion (and steadfastly defends his position) based on a few edits, that obviously is extremely ignorant (and also irrelevant) of NarSakSasLee, any editor can see that I have been a user since 2009 and any issues related to Sikhs or India make a tiny percentage of my edits (and that only recently because I saw some spamming of what I thought was undue weight and lack of neutrality)
rather than trying to discuss the issues on the article talk pages or my talk page, NarSakSasLee created a toxic environment with his call for a religiously inspired witchhunt (based on speculation), the evidence is clear about NarSakSasLee's lack of assuming good faith, lack of civility and lack of tolerance, based on these issues I do not believe NarSakSasLee has edited neutrally therefore his repeated claims of biased editing on my part should be dismissed Coasttrip (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You will have to look very hard to find anything I said above to suggest that you have used the SPI as revenge, since I implied no such thing. :/ Premature, certainly, just like this section was. It's never for the best of the project to leap to conclusions and ramp up the drama. Beyond that, statements like "that no doubt was NarSakSasLee's intention" and " that obviously is extremely ignorant ... of NarSakSasLee" seem more problematic under our policies (such as WP:AGF and WP:NPA) then what NarSakSasLee originally said. In any event, my efforts to focus people on the content dispute without the unpleasantness are obviously not likely to succeed here, so I'll simply focus on the content issues in the appropriate forum. --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
moonriddengirl, I wasn't actually accusing you of saying that that the SPI was revenge, but you did mention it here, it is NarSakSasLee who believes it is revenge, I am sorry if you interpreted it that way since thats not how I meant it. Coasttrip (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You're diatribe, ranting and Freudian slips aside, Coasttrip you are not allowed to remove reliably sourced content and then go drama hunting to back up your obviously biased agenda. Do not remove reliably sourced content or manipulate edits to make sources, especially scholarly ones, seem less reliable than they actually are, especially if there's no problem with them. You're sly attempts to classify a scholarly work as an "essay" is one of these examples. It was an academic paper. You tried multiple times (see my SPI own case for evidence) to get it removed because you had a problem with it's content based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Quit the semantics. You're fooling no one. This project's aims are to promote and bring the facts, not hide them. You're obviously hindering this goal. I'm not going to say anything more (you're Freudian slip says enough) as you're clearly wasting everyone's time. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
NarSakSasLee, sadly your ignorance of the English language is on display again, a research paper is an essay and here is one reliable source "the research paper is a long documented essay" At a Glance: Essays by Brandon Lee chapter 13 (page 216)[1]
Now that your silly argument about the definition of 'essay' has been completely and utterly debunked, perhaps you would care to explain your reasoning behind why you believe 'essay' is more biased than 'research paper'?
For someone that highlights the projects aims to promote and bring the facts, you couldn't even be bothered to do any research (or lacking the ability to do so) before you ranted about the 'biased' definition of essay, that is shocking Coasttrip (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Just one question Coasttrip, have you even read the source you've been so zealously trying to remove? You're basic argument all this time has consisted of "it does not belong in X it belongs in Y" and then "it does not belong in Y it belongs in Z". This is what I mean about your disingenuous edits. You're trying very hard to remove any reference to it. Further it was Moonriddengirl that wrote the entire Sian section and it was based on consensus that it was developed into it's neutral form from what the IP had contributed. That's why it's not an NPOV issue. NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe my contributions on that talk page are 'tendentious' or violate any wikipedia policies, because I had some genuine concerns about a particular section, you now claim I am 'promoting a particular cause or point of view' (tendentious), the word tendentious usually has negative connotation, in a way implying that I am a biased person. I think you should let others weigh in the discussion (on any talk page) before jumping to sweeping judgements after only a few hours since that is not assuming good faith. Coasttrip (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Several editors have now noticed that you're trying to promote a particular opinion. That is called bias. You deserve the trout. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:52, 21 August 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.
Following an ugly dispute that has taken place at ANI and various other locations, Strangesad (talk·contribs) has finally earned a block for her disruptive editing. However, this block is only for 48 hours. Seeing as Strangesad wants an indefinite block, and seeing as she has made suggested that she will resort to sockpuppeting (see also this and this), I hereby propose that she be banned indefinitely. Such a ban would not only demonstrate that the user's actions are not acceptable, but it would allow us to immediately revert any edits made in defiance of the ban. Ideally, this could prevent further unnecessary discussions as sockpuppets can simply be blocked, reverted and then ignored. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Support - I supported the topic ban in the thread above, but my inclination about this was to say "let's not pile on right away" -- until I read Strangesad's talk page. Certainly, being blocked can lead to an emotional reaction, and we should allow editors some leeway to blow off steam when that happens, but I'm concerned that Strangesad's reaction indicates that she was never here to contribute productively, that she has intentionally been trolling all this time. Certainly her editing history doesn't indicate any desire to neutrally improve the encyclopedia. A site ban will most probably lead to sockpuppetry, as threatened, but if I'm correct about her original intentions, socking was in her future in any event. Certainly, given the tight focus of her edits, and her combative and aggressive attitude, any sock she creates will surely be recognized fairly quickly, so I think the project is in little danger of harm from her. Reluctantly, because of the short period since the topic ban was applied, I have to support this proposal for a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Support, mainly per WP:ROPE. I would very rarely support an indefinite ban on someone with such a short block log, but their repeated threats to sock make me believe they actually mean it in earnest. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Support per my position at ANI. My experience with the editor suggests, at the very least, that she is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to rag on topics of interest to her and just cause a ruckus. These new edits are certainly proving my position. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
oppose I am one of the people Stragesad was disruptive with, and while I think their actions certainly deserve a block (perhaps a longer one than they got) I'm not a big fan of preemptive action. Give them the WP:ROPE. If they follow through on their threats, the ban easy easy to implement then. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Strangesad has announced her intention to sockpuppet and has expressed frustration at not being able to get to work doing so right away [43] I'm bummed I can't create a new account until the block expires. You guys are good! That's oaky, it gives me time to think of a new name. Site banned or not, she will try to evade her topic ban so she can continue on her mission to battle, as she imagines, against religiously prejudiced bigots. Yes, it should be easy to recognise her as BMK says, but I hope admins and others will help those of us who are active at the pages she is likely to target (Jesus, Resurrection of Jesus), etc., to watch out for her.Smeat75 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I support extension of the block to indef, until and iff the user can convince the community that they will edit collaboratively, according to our norms and policies. If talkpage usage continues to be disruptive I support withdrawing that access too. At the point where further disruption or socking is shown to have occured, I would then support increasing this to a siteban. Sorry if that seems overly bureaucratic, but I'm keen that we don't take the last step of saying "you are never welcome here" until absolutely no other options are left, and I guess that there is still the remote possibility that the reality of an indef block may force a rethink, although I confess it does seem unlikely at this point. As BMK points out, socking is likely to be trivial to spot, so we may as well reel out the last vestige of rope and stretch our AGF till the end. If nothing else we can be confident we have then given every chance possible. Begoontalk05:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we've all seen site bans lifted, so it's not really "You are never welcome here." The real difference between an indef block and a community site ban is that the former can be lifted by any admin, while the latter requires community discussion. Considering the disruption she has caused, I don't think it's unreasonable to require Strangesad to convince the community, and not simply a single admin, that she has changed her ways. (Also, in terms of practicality, a socking site-banned editor's contributions can be deleted on sight, while those from a block-evader cannot be, at least technically.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
support indef-block, oppose ban for now. The difference is that if Strangesad should decide to accept the rules of this place and request a good-faith return, the door should be open for an admin to unblock him/her, as soon as s/he gives a credible promise to respect the topic ban and not to resort to socking. I see no benefit in cementing the situation in such a way that we'd first need a big drawn-out "unban" discussion here in that situation. Fut.Perf.☼06:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It's incredibly disappointing to see people wasting MORE time over this. The whole reason I shut down the prior discussion was to prevent exactly this sort of thing. Leave her alone to sit out the block, if she misbehaves following that then it will be easy enough to spot - we have ample experience dealing with socks. At that point we can look at more serious measures. However, piling on the topic ban - block - ban train is not pleasant and you'd be better finding other things to do IMO. And bottom line; whether we ban her or not right now, she could still sock, so it makes zero difference. If she socks disruptively she will be spotted and blocked, if she doesn't then we all look a bit silly. --Errant(chat!)07:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Support despite the site ban feeding a troll. Clearly NOTHERE, has clearly stated their intention to violate every policy on Wikipedia. Get ready for the army of socks, which the site ban will help slow down. Maybe we should semi-protect and/or pending changes protect the areas where Strangesad was disruptive as well? Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)08:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutral but preferring longer timed block to indef or ban. This would obviate the apparently sought 'martyrdom' that "Strong support.Strangesad (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)" in response to the ANI notice suggests. Something is amiss. It may be that an enforced wikibreak will help things to settle down. If not, then go for the ban. Peridon (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Support ban. This user has already been given an incredible amount of leeway and has used an awful lot of the community's energy. She is not here to build an encyclopedia, and should be shown the door. --Laser brain(talk)10:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose site ban; support extended (preferably timed) block, possibly without talk page access Strangesad is an intelligent editor who could contribute well in any other area if she chose to; a site ban would deny her that option, and the topic ban is all that is needed to curb her current forms of disruption. At present, merely a day after the topic ban was imposed, she is raging. The storm doesn't look like blowing over within the 48-hour block, but might do in a fortnight or a month. I suggest revoking talk page access, as her activities there are helping her to stay worked up, as well as tempting people to further discussions like this. Let's see what a decent holiday can do before getting even more draconian. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Indefblock this account for now, with a note making clear the possibility of unblocking if they commit to changing their behavior; siteban them if the promised sockpuppeting starts. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I won't comment on a site ban, having had too many brushes with Strangesad. The latest days of disruptions, and the threats of much more disruption to come, is unfortunately only what could be expected of a user who never was able to accept any opinion that didn't agree 100% with their own views, and who always responded poorly and with heaps of abuse when things did not go their way. Looking at some articles with lots of disputes, such Muhammad and Macedonia, I see that the community has decided to deal with this by establishing policies [44] and WP:MOSMAC which put an end to years of pointless edit warring and disputes. I would propose something similar for Jesus. Given that there is complete academic consensus that the person existed, perhaps we could do a FAQ similar to that of Muhammad[45] and explain this. As Bart Ehrman has pointed out, the little group on conspiracy theorists who argue that Jesus never existed is small and lacks any academic support, but they are highly vocal and active on the Internet. As can be seen from both the puppetmaster Minorview and now Strangesad, they don't care about silly details such as Wikipedia policies in their pursuit of the higher truth. We're sure to see more, not least in the form of new puppets of these two. An easy way to deal with this, and avoid future discussions, is to do as with Muhammad. By this I do not mean we should set in stone that the article can never ever put Jesus's existence in question. Quite the opposite, the article should do that if there are in the future proper academic sources making that case, rather that non-academic WP:FRINGE ideas. As for now, there are no such sources, only a complete academic consensus. It would be easier to adhere to that consensus than to deal with the constant disruptions that have taken so much of the community's time.Jeppiz (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Let's see how she edits after her current block expires. If she violates her Topic Ban repeatedly, I'd support an indefinite block. Liz Let's Talk11:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. If an editor dares me to block them, damn straight I'm gonna block'em. But this isn't Strangesad asking to be indeffed, this is Strangesad trolling the community - and this thread is proof that they succeeded. If they break the rules, indef away - and I, for one, will be watching closely to see what happens. But we don't preemptively indef block editors for douchebaggery. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose What the hell? When did indef blocks start to become one of the first things we do rather than a last resort? There wasn't enough disruption for any type of ban, let alone a complete site ban. What the hell is becoming of Wikipedia? No wonder editing is down. This is getting way out of hand. No wonder that off wiki web sites are starting to pick up. It all starts here.--JOJHutton12:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that editing is down more because we tolerate far too much disruption and let it drag out for far too long. I also strongly disagree with your assertion about the level of disruption going on here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You can argue for that all you want, but the evidence shows that one of the biggest complaints by people who leave Wikipedia is that more established editors tend to Bite far too often. Its not the disruption that people hate, its all the damn dram brought on by other editors who should know better. Thats what the real problem is.--JOJHutton15:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much you've seen, JOJ, but from my observations, Strangesad has been incredibly disruptive, and is also not a new user either. The ANI thread where they were topic-banned is one example; their response to being topic banned was a blatant "throwing the toys out of the pram" and that has only worsened since their block. Strangesad has brought all of the drama upon themselves, and has created a good deal of it themselves directly - look at their talk page. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)16:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Suggesting that other editors are the ones causing drama here indicates you haven't actually looked through what's been going on in this particular long strange trip. - The BushrangerOne ping only17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I never suggested that anyone here is causing drama, you inferred that yourself. I only said that Drama is part of the reason why editorship is down. I have looked at the edits. An account that has only made 500 edits in 10 months is hardly a major disruption. Only about 100 or so on Jesus/Christ related talk pages. Another 50 or so on actual main pages. Most of the edits from that account are dealing with all the ANI/User page discussions. All this looks like to me is someone who supports a conflicting opinion from the majority, and the majority is trying to get rid of the opposing opinion. The opinions themselves and the related edits are not disruptive enough for an all out site ban. It goes against everything Wikipedia is "Suppose" to stand for, such as "everyone can edit". I guess not, unless they have the same opinions as everyone else. Its a poor, but unfortunately a popular tactic.--JOJHutton17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear here, Jojhutton's claim is that everybody involved in the ANI discussion held a common content opinion and wanted to get rid of anyone opposed to it? And every previously uninvolved admin here at AN who upheld the topic ban had the same agenda and the same sinister motives? And the only innocent one is the topic banned user who immediately and repeatedly violated the topic banned, repeatedly encouraged sock-puppeting, and call others "fucking pussies"? Ok, everybody is entitled to their opinion but it sure is a good thing Jojhutton isn't an admin. I don't think I've ever seen anyone less suited.Jeppiz (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Not going to feel sorry for having restraint and looking at the whole picture rather than individual screenshots. Thats the type of admin that Wikipedia needs, someone who can be truly unbiased. Perhaps if you looked at the entire scenario and take and look at the situation from someone else's point of view, you may see that Strangebad is continually provoked. Its easy to gang up on inexperienced editors to the point that all the frustrations come out all at once. Its very frustrating when you feel that not only are people not listening, but they actually want to shut you up entirely by banning you. So when the inexperienced and obviously frustrated editor lashes out because they were constantly provoked, they get banned. That doesn't seem right.--JOJHutton20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're entirely entitled to your opinion. And if that opinion is to indirectly state that all of us who insist of WP:RS are "provoking", and blaming all the admins who unanimously upheld the topic ban for being biased, and defending sockpuppeting and calling the admins "fucking pussies", then you're still perfectly entitled to that opinion. If you then also hold the opinion that you would be the "admin that Wikipedia needs", then my already stated opinion is the opposite. Contrary to what you seem to believe, different opinions are actually welcome.Jeppiz (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Well you are inferring more from my comment than I said. And we all know that inferring something that wasn't implied led to about 90% of all the plots on Three's Company. I never said that any admin here was biased in this case. I only said that unbiased admins are what Wikipedia needs. I hope you don't disagree with that. I also do not support sock puppetry or uncivil behavior, just as I do not support provoking people into that type of behavior. And as far as saying that I would be a bad admin, I am sorry that you feel that way. I'm not sure where that attack came from, but I will tell you that I do take it as a personal and unprovoked attack. I did nothing to you, but you commented on me person;;y and I was very offended by your comment.--JOJHutton22:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I certainly did not intend to offend you. For what it's worth, I don't think I would be a good admin either and I did not intend that as a comment on your person. I do believe that your reading of this particular situation is way off, but that does not lead me to make any judgement on you as a person. Certainly you can understand that you saying that Strangesad was "provoked" can be seen as an attack as well, as it means by definition that you have people in mind who "provoked" her.Jeppiz (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Support I'm sorry, but using such language combined with the sheer and blatant disrespect, hatred, and disgusting attitude leaves us no choice but to impose a CBAN. Good riddance. Dusti*Let's talk!*15:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Note:
Strong support. Strangesad (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, that has already been copied over -- see about a dozen comments above this. Interesting that someone with such a strong anti-religious POV should show such signs of having something of a martyr complex - but I suppose ideologues of all types share that. Or, of course, she could just be anxious to begin socking, as threatened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Strangesad has definitely been upset by the topic ban. I think such a reaction can be understandable, though not defended, and I do not think we should judge the user only based on that. The block will expire tomorrow and I suggest no decision is taken before. If Strangesad has calmed down and goes back to editing responsibly, then no site ban should be imposed. Site banning right now would seem premature.Jeppiz (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think an editor should have a 48 block extended to indefinitely during the 48 hours when no additional disruption has been caused. I feel like Strangesad is being deliberately provocative on her Talk Page, issuing a dare of sorts but that doesn't mean we need to take the bait. She should be treated as any other editor who has been given a limited time duration ban. Unblock her and see what happens. If she continues to be disruptive, block a week, again, then a month, then 3 months. Or it might not happen at all. Liz Let's Talk00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement that there be a standard escalation of blocks - that regime is designed for editors who are, for the most part, productive and helpful to the building of an encyclopedia, but run afoul of the rules occasionally. An editor who is so disruptive that they have been topic banned, and has provoked long-term editors, both rank-and-file and admins, into seriously talking about a site ban, shouldn't get that kind of consideration. If this discussion isn't closed with a site ban or an indef block, then Stragesad's leash should be extremely short. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, I hope whoever closes the discussion won't take the "site ban" !votes and the "indef block" !votes as being unrelated. I think it's obvious that every comment advocating a site ban is a de facto approval of an indef block if a site ban isn't the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It was my understanding that everybody of course can comment as much as we want, but that we only state our oppose or our support once. I don't quite get the meaning of repeating several oppose or support in the same discussion, as Liz is doing here. Doesn't it just make things look messier? Then again, perhaps I've missed something, hence the question.Jeppiz (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose; based on one criteria—Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Strangesad. If it is prudent enough for Arbcom to prefer an Rfc/u, prerequisite a siteban, it is prudent enough that we ennoble this board, by nullification if necessary. My !vote derives from a belief that nearly all editors deserve such a full consideration; even Strangesad, and me—and you? :)John Cline (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - The account has just over 500 edits in less than a year. Is there any evidence that this is already a banned user, or that they have already been socking? Doctalk09:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose This is on admittedly incomplete information, but I started looking at the first edits of SS. I reject the claim above that SS was "never here to contribute productively, that she has intentionally been trolling all this time". The very first edit was to add a site dedicated to the Vancouver Island Marmot to the article Vancouver Island marmot. It was reverted. SS politely asked why and was told "discourages links that are only marginally related to the page content". SS politely explained why a site about the Vancouver Island marmot was related to the article about the Vancouver Island marmot. I recount this to make two points: first it is clear that the editor was engaging in productive edits at one time. Second, our communities reponse to this new editor wasn't ideal as the response by Jprg1966 was "Yes, I did look at the link and I would appreciate a more respectful tone". Seriously? The use of the word "honestly" by a new editor is so egregious it deserves this rebuke? Shortly after, when SS points out that policy forbids those involved from voting on bans, Nil Einne responds "...What they failed to point out is it also forbids those uninvolved from voting. ..." This, understandably, confuses SS. While Nil Einne was technically correct, this is the type of response you give to someone with years of experience, who will get it, not to a new editor. Not a big deal, but, as a community, we do not treat new editors well. Perhaps we shouldn't wonder when it turns out badly.
Please note I am not excusing later behavior, I haven't even read it. I'll accept that a block was warranted. However, this does not appear to be the exceptional case that justifies an indef so quickly.--SPhilbrick(Talk)14:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
In my reference to me, I take it you are referring to this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Bizarre actions by Strangesad. I disagree with you that this response was not suitable for Strangesad because they're new, ignoring the fact I think it's unresonable to expect people to automatically know if someone is new or not when responding. While we can sometimes treat new editors poorly, new editors also need to interact with the community in a resonable manner. It's not unresonable to not understand our policies and guidelines and we expect that, but similarly new editors should also expect that they may not understand our policies and guidelines and should be willing to read them when asked to and should be willing to ask for help or explaination when confused rather then just expecting people to know something is confusing them or acting like they know and understand our policies and guidelines. To be clear, I'm not saying Strangesad's behaviour was very bad, simply that if they were confused, they were welcome and should have sought seek clarification of my response, which wasn't even directed at them (and was in small text i.e. was clearly intended as an off the cuff remark). If an editor is unwilling to seek clarification of stuff which confuses them, the problem is with the, not us. This doesn't mean we should be intentionally confusing, but as I've indicated we often do not check an editors history so have little idea of their experience beyond what we may guess from their comments or any discussion surrounding them (but there's generally no requirement or expectation to read the entirety of the discussion before commenting on one specific issue); and in addition in side discussions primarily involving other editors (which this was), it's unresonable and unnecessary to aim for perfect clarity for anyone minorly involved in the discussion. As it was, Strangesad must have read something, otherwise they wouldn't be able to suggest involved editors are forbidden from voting, yet they clearly either didn't read properly or failed to understand what they were reading since they seemed to think involved editors opinions are not able to participate in determing consensus and that we vote rather than reach consensus, both I consider fundamental misunderstandings of policy. For the voting issue, it sounds like it was pointed out to Strangesad before that we do not vote, yet they persisted in this confusion which is unfortunate to say the least. It may be that my comment directed at someone else, finally lead to this existing confusion being cleared up which I consider a good thing whatever the temporary additional confusion. I would note I'm perfectly willing to offer clearer explainations to new editors when they seem to need it and I have the time, the most common complaint I get is of being insufficiently concise not of expecting new editors to understand something only an experienced editor would. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - to steal the words of User:Floquenbeam - somehow it's still possible to push the blocky button without a stupid proposal that is wasting people's times. This bureaucracy is utterly ridiculous. for the record, I support blocking any socks that come up ~Charmlet-talk-14:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I hesitate to get involved here, but since I was pinged, I think you've misunderstood my point a little, and I'd like to clarify it. I'm opposed to the numerous stupid "community ban" threads about prolific vandal sockmasters who are already indef blocked, because it achieves no benefit whatsoever from the current condition, and diminishes us in several ways. But I don't have a similar blanket contempt for community ban proposals for someone who is not yet indef blocked, because this discussion could result in a change to the status quo. I'm not going to express an opinion on whether this particular editor should actually be banned or not - haven't looked into it - but for those 2-3 people for whom "per Floq" means something, Charmlet's opinion is not really based on my typical ban discussion comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as I misinterpreted that, I've stricken your name from my comment. However, as I stated, it was not impossible to push the block button before this was closed. There's no need for a strict exact explicit ban unless anything further happens. ~Charmlet-talk-18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Strangesad's first activity after the expiration of her block - [46] - restores a long post on the Jesus talk page, repeating a lot of stuff she has said many times ("How many times do I have to say this?"), with an edit summary "this response was begun (but not completed) prior to the topic ban and thus not covered by ban; it is also wrong to characterize these discussions as ban-worthy".Smeat75 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose site ban. Support the existing topic ban. Jesus is hard. The "scholarship" in the field is dominated by people who believe he walked on water and rose from the dead and that they drink his blood and eat his body every Sunday, and very few serious historians can be bothered with a topic dominated by such people. So I have the deepest sympathy with Strangesad's frustration, but also realise they're howling at the moon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole. You chose to write "The 'scholarship' in the field" as if they are not qualified. With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. Most of the scholarship in the field is made up of academics from leading US universities (Harvard, Princeton, Yale) and very few of them believe Jesus walked on water. The leading source we cite, professor Ehrman, is not even a Christian and has written countless books exposing problems in traditional Christian perceptions about Jesus. This is of course of topic, but the comment above was so ridiculous that I wanted to address it. Not to mention how insulting it was to a large number of scholars.Jeppiz (talk) 19:25, 21 August 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.
You feature numerous articles on motorcycle racers from the modern era who are not notable and have no significant achievements to justify their inclusion. If a rider`s MotoGP career indicates, for example, 2 races, 0 wins, 0 podiums and 0 points why would you want to include their biographies? In contrast there are many riders from the past with substantial achievements to their name who do not have Wikipedia pages dedicated to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaun69 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 22 August 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.
Kauffner (talk·contribs) has now been ifdeffed for sockpuppetry (the most recent cases occurring just this week). The original source of the temporary block was edit warring over a page he created which was redirected after multiple consensus building discussions. He is now using his talk page to misrepresent the reasons for his block, and as a talk page copy of the article which was redirected. I believe this is an inappropriate use of the talk page so someone might want to do something about that. I will notify him, even though he cannot respond here. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the cut and past of the article from their talk page, along with a note explaining why it is inappropriate. Kauffner is free to present their arguments in an unblock request if they would like to, however using the talk page to continue the same arguments and disruption that led to the block will only result in their talk page access being revoked.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots19:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Way to go. But he should really get a community block. Otherwise, he might write another article on Vietnamese writing, or something like that. SpanishHarlem1 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Who the hell knows. Maybe it's Technoquat. Or Qworty. Or the Hanoi vandal--careful, no heavy metal ballads allowed! Drmies (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
He is certainly taking the mick with us. He knew where he was heading as his tricks where becoming too open. He gets involved in a really stupid editwar which leads to his block and has an army of sleeper socks prepared for that eventuality. I don't know what his reasoning was, maybe he thought he could get away with it and get his POW accross while pretending to be someone else. Maybe he wants to play cat-and-mouse with us. Either way he clearly has no regard for this community and as such has no place here. I move for a site-ban. Opinions? Agathoclea (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
With a history of sockpuppetry, disruption and being unable to work with others, I think it's time to propose a community ban on Kauffner. I think the community needs to step up and say to him, "You are done here."
Support - a long history of deliberately seeking out conflicts with particular users, creating attack pages, and now widespread socking to push their POV. Time to kick them out. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)07:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. Kauffner's been dragged around the various boards enough times that I have no hope he'll see the error of his ways. If he'd wanted to avoid this ban, he had more than enough opportunities to turn over a new leaf. As I said here, he's completely unable to see that he could ever be in the wrong; though this is probably too optimistic, I'd like to think that a ban might convince him that he's the problem, not the rest of us. (To that end, I'd urge the admins not to close this thread until it's had a decent amount of participation, lest he rationalize this with the old "just a bad day at AN" line.) — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block)14:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Kauffner obviously is unwilling to work constructively and I think any decision to unblock him should require the consensus of the community, which is the effect a ban would have. TFD (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. He has definitively abandoned all pretense of editing constructively, the purpose of his socks being merely to show his contempt of Wikipedia and to fan his delusion of martyrdom. Favonian (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. A banned editor can always, with the passage of time and a demonstration of contrition and understanding of the reasons for the ban, be reinstated. If at some point in the future Kauffner is able to see his way towards making positive contributions, then his eligibility to edit may be reconsidered. bd2412T19:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I read through the VERY long sock puppet investigation page, primarily because I believed if I kept reading it would make sense. But it never did. A lot of effort expended on his part, creating new accounts, just to have his way over some RMs. Maybe time away will give him perspective and realize that ones integrity isn't worth throwing away just to get some "Wins" in the RM column. So much effort, so little payoff and now here comes the hammer. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk00:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. After looking through all of this mess, I can only conclude from Kauffner's commentary (most recently and perhaps especially his 'point #1' here) that either he is completely incapable of understanding what led to his block, or, unfortunatly more likely, that he is deliberately and willfully acting as if he doesn't. And even if the original block were vindictive as he alleges (something which, for the record, I do not believe at all), his conduct since then has utterly destroyed any confidence I have that there is any way he could be a constructive contributor to the encyclopedia in the forseeable future, as even if his content was 100% FA-grade, his conduct has and would continue to create an utterly toxic environment, he is either incapable or unwilling to accept - or even to understand - how WP:CONSENSUS, redirecting, and RM/RfC discussions work [47][48], and from his commentary and contributions I must conclude that it is the latter. I hope that in time he'll come to realise what has led to this point, work to rectify those issues, and become a productive and valued contributor to the encyclopedia once more, but until then his continued utter refusal to get the point and continued trolling comments in response to this leaves no option but this one. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. I can't imagine an admin unblocking him, but as Kauffner has dodged sanctions so many times before this step is probably necessary. He has been disruptive for years now, and it's just escalating. Sadly, this escalation may well have been avoided if the previously proposed topic bans had been enacted. At this point, however, he's just demonstrating that he's either unable, or entirely unwilling, to participate in a collaborative environment. Wikipedia and Kauffner are better off without each other.--Cúchullaint/c13:59, 19 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
WP:FOUR has been contentious of late with people proposing new criteria for the award. Recently, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award was opened. Now, what I believe to be a premature RFC was opened. There is talk of having new criteria at WP:FOUR. I have been attempting to identify all the articles that would have to be rereviewed before hosting an RFC on the issue. I have been drafting the RFC since August 1. Now User:Khazar2 who does not seem to know the issues is jumping in with a premature RFC. Because he does has not been involved and does not know the issues, he views my attempt to determine which articles are at issue as spurious "data collection" and he does not understand some of the other issues. I am not even sure if he understands all the articles will have to be rereviewed if he changes the criteria (to something like anyone involved in the first 24 hours). Is it possible to shut that RFC down until the MFD is complete and we have an understanding of what articles are at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
With respect, this complaint just screams of the same WP:OWN issues that you already face in this area. Someone beat you to the punch, and did so without requiring a massive proposal for an RFC that is framed as much in your favour as you think you can get away with. Resolute18:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you see no possibility that you two can work together on this? It seems unwise to close one RfC down only to immediately open a new RfC. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk21:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In direct response to your question, I am willing to respond to feedback about the RFC, but don't think a new RFC will be opening up immediately. I doubt we will know the articles at issue before September unless a kind bot operator steps in. The MFD will certainly last a few more days and probably another week.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In all honesty, it seems that there is a faction that is very intent on new set of criteria which would necessitate that all articles be rereviewed. No articles have been reviewed for the criteria that they propose. I would like to encourage them to create their own award and let this one police itself. Then my RFC could get feedback on the award related to the 800 or so articles that have been reviewed for the long-established criteria. Is there a way to encourage the people who want to create a new award just to go off and do it rather than try and impose it on this one. I doubt people involved in the current award are going to review the articles for the new criteria. I certainly am not and I have done 90% of the reviews for the current award. The people who have been awarded the award may not be awarded it for the new criteria. Can't we just ask them to create their own award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't respond here sooner; I didn't receive the ping from the link above, and Tony elected not to notify my talk page. I'm frustrated to discover yet another thread Tony's making accusations against me in this week: the total now includes WT:DYK, WT:FAC, WT:GAN, two threads on this page, and more than 150 user pages. (Admittedly, this one is better than his usual accusations that I'm making bad-faith efforts to stifle discussion, such as here and here).
Tony, I've voluntarily withdrawn from the conversation at FOUR to try to get back to content work; I'd appreciate it if you'd stop your harassment and leave me out of this from here on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion
Three edits to the article Defense distributed were hidden on May 11, 2013. To be clear, I am not trying to have the edits restored or find out whatever secret information was there. I am simply trying to ensure that transparency is maintained when the two admins involved have been less responsive than I would like.
The problem is that the edit summary was hidden even though WP:CRD states that "It is important that the underlying reason for deletion be made clear in the log summary." My understanding is that User:The Anome redacted the edits and originally gave a reason but the edit summary was hidden by User:Fred Bauder.
User:Fred Bauder replied to a discussion I started but he did not address the question of whether his edit was going against a Wikipedia policy. I tried to discuss this with User:The Anome as well but have been unable to get a response out of him. Please make sure that some sort of edit summary finds its way into the logs so that users understand why the redaction was necessary. Connor Behan (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@Connor Behan: I think you were looking at the history - not the deletion log summary. The deletion log is located at Special:Log along with the other logs, and for this page can be accessed here. This shows that User:The AnomeRevision Deleted the content (not the user or edit summaries) of three edits in the history, shown by looking like this (Redacted) in the edit history. The Anome apparently also reported this to the Oversight team for Oversight. Before doing the Revision Deletion, The Anome removed the offending text from the page, and left an edit summary to this accord. User:Fred Bauder came along and deleted the edit summary for The Anome's edit because it had the offending text in it. Hope this helps explain the mess. As the edits were at least RevDeled, and at most oversighted, it's unlikely that any more explanation can be offered than they already have. ~Charmlet-talk-19:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
So the reason for the revdel only needs to appear in the deletion log and not the history? In either case this has not been done because the log only says that the revision was sent to the Oversight team, not why. I really don't see why a proper explanation cannot be added to the logs or the history. Just write "Removing a link that could put Wikipedia in violation of US arms trafficking laws" and everyone will be happy. Connor Behan (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Making a questionable legal assertion would be inappropriate. Legal may have been notified, however; I can't remember at this point. Meanwhile, the question of whether there should be links to patterns of plastic weapons, and links to where to get [whatever], should be included, and, if removed, not hidden, but discussed in candid detail remains open for policy discussion. User:Fred BauderTalk22:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
As Pink& says, giving information in the RevDel summary if it will be sent to Oversight could cause a Streisand Effect, or could even accidentally perpetuate the problem, which requires *more* deletions, etc. etc. ~Charmlet-talk-22:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad we have gotten to the heart of the problem. Giving a proper edit summary makes it easier for people to figure out what the text said. Why is this a problem? Wikipedia is not in the business of making it hard for people to learn things. In fact quite the opposite. Some redactions are necessary to protect Wikipedia legally but beyond that, we should not take steps to actively prevent a Streisand Effect. Connor Behan (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:REVDEL: "To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion.". And it's always been my understanding that a revdel should have as little a summary as possible (basically, unless you're using RD5 when you do have to explain it), lest it attract curiosity and defeat the purpose of the revdel. - The BushrangerOne ping only17:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The italicized line calling for a clear reason appears in RD5. However, the green box on top of the seven cases also says to give a clear reason and this would suggest that reasons must be given for all cases except RD4. I didn't really know about Oversight when I tried to challenge the decision made with Defense Distributed. Now that I know oversightable RevDels are covered by a special section, I must concede that the policy was followed well by User:The Anome and User:Fred Bauder. I strongly encourage admins reading this to give clear reasons when using RD1, RD2, RD3, RD5, RD6 or AC. I think this is the only fair thing to do. Connor Behan (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone's wondering, in this case a link was inserted to The Pirate Bay. The site hosts lots of links to copyright violations, so it might be a good idea to remove their links even if there are no arms trafficking issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As a general rule, Wikipedia should avoid assuming a role as an accessory of anyone engaging in criminal behavior. We do not hold trials regarding individual links but do need to take reasonable precautions; this may include actions taken without definite determination of the nature of individual links and their full implications. We are not Pirate Bay; we are not in the business they are in; and we have not, and will not, take the measures they seem to have taken to avoid prosecution and loss of our assets. User:Fred BauderTalk13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
This is motivated by this ANI thread, especially the part after the closed box.
Our current rules say one must notify by adding a notice to a talk page.
Now that we have our new notification system, using the parties' names (as a wikilink) in the ANI thread will send a notification. While this is arguably not on their talk page, that is a detail that can be fixed with a minor edit to the instructions.
I think it would be a good decision to reach a consensus as a community that such a notification constitutes notification, for two reasons:
Despite the big bold notice, editors fail to use the notification template just about every day. In contrast, it would be easier to encourage a best practice behavior of using the ID of an editor when referring to them (perhaps just the first time in the thread) rather than a shorthand reference to their name. With this practice, editors wouldn't have to remember to do something special when posting to AN or ANI
Editors have to grapple with the conflict between interaction bans and notification requirements. While it is easy to say that the notification requirement trumps the interaction ban, as Orlady notes, this can be contentious. Allowing the small red notification icon to count as notification might be a nice solution, as the editor would not have to add a full section.
Of course, that raises the opposite issue. If an editor has an interaction ban (as opposed to a "don't even mention them ban", does using their name in a post constitute violation of the ban? I suggest the answer should be no, but we should watch for gratuitous use, which might constitute gaming.
Apologies is this has been discussed before, as seems likely, but as the linked thread indicates, the answers aren't known by all, if this has been settled.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Since it is easy to turn off notifications for everything except a talk page message, relying on the notification system is not bulletproof. People with interaction bans can just say in the AN/ANI thread they haven't notified because of an interaction ban, and someone else can do it. There seems to be a large number of people who check whether someone was notified, in order to scream at the people who don't do it, so they can make themselves useful and do it themselves. I don't think this needs an expansion of the instructions, just common sense and the ability to not freak completely out if someone forgets. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Plus the notification system may not actually work 100% of the time when it is turned on, for example if you use the {{user}} template or similar. GiantSnowman15:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Two good objections, but I'm not going to cave yet. Taking the easy one first, I didn't know that the {{user}} didn't do a notification. I bet that can be fixed. Ironically, I had never used it before today, and used it to let u:Orlady know she was mentioned, but that obviously failed. Regarding turning it off, I should have realized that was an option. Are there good reasons for turning it off? I find it quite useful. I wouldn't mandate that people turn it on, but I would have no problem announcing that our system for notification is the ...drum roll... notification system,. If you want to turn it off, do so, but don't complain if you aren't notified. I'll feel differently if there are some technical problems forcing some to turn it off.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Re:{{user}} - it's not that it doesn't create a notification at all, because it does, but it's that it doesn't do so 100% of the time. Did Sphilbrick (talk·contribs) work for instance? Either way it's a bug that needs fixing ASAP. GiantSnowman16:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Oddly, I just posted here, mentioning my name twice, once with each option. As I did so, I saw the notification icon turn on. But I was surprised to see thatrot said it was from you. In an additional oddity, you had edited the section before, so I thought maybe it was picking up your name form the prior section, but now I get it. I did get one notification, form you. I didn't get one from myself, but that might be a feature, not a bug.--SPhilbrick(Talk)16:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I did receive a notification of this discussion, but perceived that other things I needed to do had more immediate priority than responding here. --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It's useful to recognize that this feature of the new notification system can be disabled. I have found it to be very effective at notifying me that my userid has been mentioned, although oftentimes the mention is an inconsequential one that does not require my follow-up. I did assume (apparently incorrectly) that the user whose name I mentioned is one who would be paying attention to those notifications.
As it happens, I'm not under an interaction ban with this user, so I could not have claimed that as a reason for not notifying him. Rather, he has made it very clear that he will not tolerate my posting on his talk page for any reason, and I did state in the Arbcom proceeding that I would endeavor to avoid interactions. Explaining all that always comes across as "airing dirty linen in public", so I'm not eager to do so. In this instance, my objective was to find someone who had no history of interaction with him or me, and whose opinion he would respect, to talk to him about the length of his talk page. (Maybe next time I need to use a "Find a random admin" script to find such a party.) --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with moving on re that specific issue, however, it did spur me to think that deeming the notification system as a notification would solve a number of problems.--SPhilbrick(Talk)17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate page moves by User:Captain Assassin! (Revisited)
Latest comment: 11 years ago63 comments19 people in discussion
Going to NAC this. Captain Assassin has been blocked for 6months for disruption. Further discussion is largely unnecessary. Blackmane (talk) 12:30, 23 August 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.
Captain Assassin! (talk·contribs·logs) has been performing a number of page moved that I consider to be inappropriate. The latest is described here. On July 20, 2013, Tneedham1 (talk·contribs) created the article Outlander (TV series). On August 4, Captain Assassin! moved this page to Outlander (2014 TV series), then created a redirect out of it, which he pointed toward his own newly created article at the former location Outlander (TV series). The funniest part is that comparing the diffs of the 2 articles, [49] and [50], you will see that the articles are exactly the same. Captain Assassin! has just copied the work of Tneedham1 onto his newly created page. IMO, this is completely inappropriate and unfair to the other editor.
This is not the first time Captain Assassin! has moved articles so that he can create his own and get "credit" for it (and he does use the word "credit" often). Just over a week ago, he moved Hercules 3D, created by User:Mythoingramus, to Hercules 3D (film) and created a redirect so that it would point to his newly created version of Hercules 3D. There is no reason why Captain Assassin! could not add to/improve the original page.
Looking at his talk page, there have been discussions regarding page moves like this with other editors, including a "feud" with Rusted AutoParts (talk·contribs), which includes earlier discussions here and here. See also the history of deletions (8 within 2.5 months!) on this page: Into the Woods (film)
(On a separate but related note, Captain Assassin! has been under considerable scrutiny for creating inappropriate redirects. That discussion is for another day because I don't have the time to document that here right now. I will mention that at least 7 editors have pointed out problems with this behavior to him in the last 3 months: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58].)
Is it possible to block an editor from being able to move pages? I feel Captain Assassin!'s page moves are inappropriate and unfair to other editors. It definitely undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I do not think that he deserves this privilege. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
NOTE: I am currently fixing the editor's copy-paste creations, so some of the links above may appear red. I will look at warning/sanctioning after that. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed the Outlander issue by deleting the copy-paste and moving the original version back. I have history-merged the two versions of Hercules 3D together so that the original creating editor's edits are in the history. The others are not so straightforward, as the articles are either about different things or actually contain the user's own content. I'll continue to look at it. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My analysis, seeing as I've been viewing his conduct since May when he swiped A Million Ways to Die in the West because he had the content, is that he wants the credit. He seemingly has no other motivation, everything is a personal attack to him. [[Into the Woods was deleted before. I recreated it, but he immediately swiped it again. Rusted AutoParts22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no way to prevent an editor from moving pages without blocking the editor entirely; all registered users are able to move pages once they hit the autoconfirmed threshhold. However, we could implement a pagemove ban on him; this would be something saying "You're not allowed to move pages anymore, and you'll be blocked if you do it". Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that probably needs to extend to creating redirects as well. Simply a glance at the user's talkpage strongly indicates someone who doesn't actually seem to grasp simple concepts, and then proceeds to completely ignore them once they've been explained to them. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I would support a page move ban, as well as the redirect creation ban mentioned by Black Tie. Captain Assassin!'s edits are extremely disruptive, and he doesn't see any problems with his actions. Occasionally he does apologize for a "mistake", then continues to make it again and again. I do not feel this issue will go away without administrative action of some kind.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That's only a minor issue. What about your redirecting of the Outlander article and then recreating it yourself with the same content? That's simply disruptive. What was the thinking behind that? Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not only disruptive, although that may also be block worthy, it is apparent copyright violation (and plain old deceitful), because there is not attribution to the original author under the license. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Look, I created the redirect of Outlander, a user CSD it and got it removed on July 19. So on the next day some user created it, I was just in bad mood already so it happened that way. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 00:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
In an apparent effort to collect "credit" for creating articles, Captain Assassin rushes to create redirects and articles, apparently merely copying info from IMDb. Palo Alto (2013 film) was created with one (and only one) source which directly and specifically stated that the collection of stories ("Palo Alto") was expected to be made into three films, none of which are named "Palo Alto" and none of which are likely to be released in 2013. The Winter Queen (2014 film) was created as a redirect with the target only stating that filming was expected to begin in 2011 (with 2010 sources); the IMDb page likely used has now been deleted. Just Before I Go was created as a nonsensical redirect to the director. Faced with the possible deletion of the redirect, Captain created an article based on one (and only one) source that only knows of the project as "Hello I Must Be Going". In general (supporting my IMDb as the only source theory) his film articles include substantial lists of names not found in any other source (seriously: where else do you find the editor's name when the film has just started filming?). In addressing this issue, Captain says, essentially, that he plans to find sources for the information he adds after adding it. In short, it seems Captain is frequently here to collect "credit", not to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I've just read the editor's talk page, and I think the problem goes well beyond creating bizarre redirects and unsourced articles about possible future films. I don't think a topic ban is going to cut it here, the real problem is a total lack of competency. I would support a topic ban if that's as far as folks are willing to go, but I'm afraid the real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, what a good idea of indefinite block, am I doing wrong now? Redirects and unsourced problems are solved already, I'm not doing that again. Now the problem is moving articles or redirects, well you can have my word and see for the next time. There will be nothing gone of you if you'll just give me some time and see if I do it again. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
He could probably do with tidying up his signature a bit too. 529 characters to sign and date a post (especially when the I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. comment is just 69 characters long). Nick (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm certainly going to support an indef, having looked at this. Captain Assassin's behaviour is flat-out wrong, and needs to stop, permanently. Moving around articles on your whim, and copy-paste moves to try and gain credit is bang out of order, and this is not what Wikipedia is for. Add in the inappropriate new articles you've created, and we're left with an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is here to attention seek, by any means possible. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)16:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
How is my behavior flat-out wrong now? What am I doing now, I'm just saying that I'll show myself improved if you just give me some time and see. Is there anything wrong in saying that? --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Capt. Assassin - recommend you post on the Film Project talk page to get other users opinions on page moves. For example, you recently moved Belle (2013 film) to Belle (2014 film), which I believe you did in good faith. I've moved it back, per WP:FILMRELEASE (the Toronto premiere makes it a 2013 film). Please read the FILMRELEASE guide I've linked to, and if in doubt, please head to the Film Project for futher clarity. The same with the redirects too. Thanks! LugnutsDick Laurent is dead19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No probs. Rather than all this topic ban nonsense, I purpose a simple "do not move/do not create redirects" until futher notice. Captain Assassin has done some great work expanding articles and I think this is a bit heavy-handed (I can't see a previous ANI about the same issue). For page moves, if in doubt either go to the film project or log a request at requested moves. For redirects, there's no need to create them as they would fail WP:NFF and will be speedily deleted in any case. Of course, if you are actually starting a new notable article, that is fine. Any of the people who brought this to ANI disagree? Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead06:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again Lugnuts, but look, I'll not move any redirect or film page until I noticed you but creating redirects is another problem. Because if I'm willing to create an article (as example an adaptation) later so if I have reliable sources at the target and the film is in development so I should have created the redirect, what do you think of that? Sorry if I'm wrong but I think WP:NFF is for future films articles but I'm not creating the articles until principal photography or filming begin, I'm just saying for the creation of redirects to make them article later when filming begin. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes and there is a thing in that to create the redirects to the sections of other articles if we need it, so I think redirects can be created if they meet notability, like I said I will only create the redirects when target articles have reliable sources and proper evidence of the redirected article and then it is a significant redirect to wait to be created into a good and expanded article later. And its just redirects man, everyone creates the redirects some have been caught ( like me :), kidding ) and others fled, it's just the matter of time. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Per the last comment, I would say that at minimum, any topic ban on Captain Assassin! needs to unequivocally include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. This contributor is self-evidently obsessed with 'getting in first', and such an attitude can only be to the detriment of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I would agree completely with the fact that any topic ban will need to include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. Unfortunately, I cannot see Captain Assassin! being able to follow through with this. From his comments above, he clearly is not interested in agreeing to such a ban. From the conversations he has had with User:Rossami and User:SummerPhD on his talk page, he has gone back on his word to not create redirects without proper sources many times. For that reason, for his recent comments above, and his history of wanting to get "credit" for everything, I think the encyclopedia would benefit if he was permanently blocked. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the evidence doesn't look too good in CA's favour. This redirect was created in the last 24hrs (IE while this discussion was ongoing) with the edit summary "Film is not started filming or production yet so redirect to its main article". The main article states "[the film] was still in the works however likely would follow Terminator 5, which is due for release in 2015". Hardly grounds for creating a meaningful redirect of any real use. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead11:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that I'm always going to create redirects, I'm just saying that I'll only create some redirects with high notability. I'm not fighting and doing anything harm to you or Wikipedia, I'm just asking for it to let me do it just a few which I will create and expand later. I'll create redirects like 50 or 100 a moment or in a month, I'll only create which have to be created (like novel and musical adaptations with production information at their targets. I'm asking it very politely, if you are thinking I'm in bad mood or I'm a angry person, well I'm not. I'm agree with you all but about redirects I'm just asking for it because everyone here in Wikipedia is allow to create them, so should I. I've learned so much in this discussion but I want to help Wikipedia. If you just think a little that a redirect will take us to the target where information of that redirected article is available with pure reliable sources and this thing is also an Admin said to me to put information about the redirected article at the target with sources then create the redirect. I'm not talking about credits here, I'm talking about rules. There are no rules to not create the redirects, if you want to ban me you should ban completely creating redirects so no one will create redirects in future. And again (specially to you Logical Fuzz), I'm not a bad guy or a rude if you are thinking of that, I'm a very politely talking and kind heart person in my real life and I'm not talking rude here too. And as above User:Lukeno94 said about my behavior, I never get angry even if someone beat me hardly so how would I behave rude or my behavior could be wrong. I'm just a animation student with full of sorrows and grieves who is looking for happiness in real life. I never hurt a person real life how can I harm or destroy encyclopedia, I don't want to. I'm nothing in here, I've made mistakes and still making perhaps, so do everyone (if not now sometimes in the past). I like very much to help encyclopedia even I tell everyone around me (my friends) to use it and help it by editing, I'm a fast learner and I don't do the thing again if someone stopped me to not to do (even in my real life) but this redirect thing is just making me crazy, you now why if you have just saw me editing or working here you all can see that I've mostly worked on stub creating, I mean I love to create stub articles, I love to start them and see others expanding them. It's not like I want credits, once I wanted it when I moved some redirects mentioned above but when I got here in this discussion I swore not to do that again. You are not thinking clearly or perhaps not understanding me clearly, don't mind I'm just saying, I think I wrote something which teased you or I don't know...which showed you or made you think that my behavior is rude but seriously I'm very polite talking. I don't know why I want to create redirects so much perhaps for stub creating as I told. You can see my whole editing history or ask Mr. User:Bgwhite or User:Mar4d, I'm really very interested in creating stubs and I had always in past. So I'm just asking/saying please don't ban it, it helps to create history in editing of that article which I think also benefits Wikipedia. Or if, if you want to ban it then I'll suggest ban it permanently in Wikipedia so no one should create them (if you think redirects are harmful to encyclopedia). And in last this blocked thing, I don't think Wikipedia wants a user blocked who is editing a lot (if not a lot then a few but it is something), so I don't want to be blocked at any price but I've told you my problems and solutions as well in this comment. I don't know what you all are thinking but I'm not being rude to anyone, once I was angry only with User:Rusted AutoParts but I forgave him after that and I apologize to him now. You all should know that I'm a Muslim and we are very good in forgiving (if not everyone, I'm), our religion wants peace and we are peaceful. Today is our Eid al-Fitr holiday celebrations, this is a great celebration day for all Muslims, I'll just say Allah bless you all with great happiness :). Please don't think I'm involving the religion in this, it's just because today is a big day for us. By the way Lugnuts, I thought you were helping me in this condition of mine Twins 2 is the title in development announced by actor, is it wrong seriously?. So the decision is up to you all, I'm nothing guys but I'm just wanting to help it because I love Wikipedia and I told this to everyone around me when they make joke of me editing it (personally I want to edit it and edit and edit and edit it like always :) ). --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 15:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I also repeat my comment. Captain Assassin is either trolling, is otherwise choosing to ignore the concerns raised by everyone in this thread, or simply doesn't understand what is going on. Either way, their wall of text is a clear sign that they're a net negative. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I just don't know what to say now really, I'm feeling very sorry for my last comments above. Just do what you want to do, I'm on my kneels now. Or let's negotiate it in better ways if someone here is good in that or bring someone here. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 15:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I've known Assassin since he first started. For full disclosure, I do consider him a friend around here. I've personally never seen Assassin do any trolling or ignore concerns. He does however have trouble understanding. Assassin's current actions are vary similar to when he first started. It took a bit, but Kudpung and I finally "knocked" some sense into him. I'm not sure if it a language barrier or cultural differences or.... I can see two solutions.
Before any page move or redirect created, he asks somebody first. After a bit of time, Assassin will understand what constitutes a good or bad page move. I am willing to be the person to help him out, however this is not my area of expertise. If Assassin does move a page or create a redirect without asking first, he should have a page move and redirect ban placed.
Place a page move and redirect ban now. But, not a permanent one.
I would, of course, favour option #1. Beyond My Ken said, "...real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively." I don't think one can get an "understanding how things work" without one showing him how in a non-adversarial setting. Bgwhite (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Its a good idea what Bgwhite recommends, ask someone first before creating a redirect or moving a page, if I was doing wrong or I'm doing wrong I think I'll understand the problems and errors what I was doing in the past. I've learned from Bgwhite so much, he helped me a lot and I respect him and all of you here but I'll suggest to give me time first and let me go on the good way. Eventually you'll see my improvement, I can guarantee that. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest, having read the entire screed, that CA be mentored actively to ensure that he understands. During this period we can expect a decreasing volume of errors. However, if the willingness he expresses to ask first shows signs of weakening, and if the behaviour of poor moves et al reappears, the community should take a further view. FiddleFaddle08:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm 100% agreed with Lugnuts, I'll not create redirects and I'll discuss moves at Film project talk. And as Bgwhite said to ask first, I'll ask someone for further moves and redirects. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 09:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
How can we know you're being truthful? In all of the previous discussions on your actions, you said you'd comply with what the editor asked you to do and then not do it. You had been warned numerous times not to and yet continued. You even kept doing it during the course of this conversation. Until I see it for myself, I don't think I can believe you. Rusted AutoParts16:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm giving my word you believe it or not it's not in my hand, by the way don't mind RAP but you are also a terrible redirects creator and mover as you did with Into the Woods (film). But I've made mistakes and I admit it and from now I will do after discuss it with someone. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
How can someone be terrible at creating redirects? Into the Woods is another example of your recklessness. You moved it so you could own it, it was deleted, I recreated it, then you took it again, and again was deleted. Even if Lugnuts or BG stand in your corner, there is still quite a few people who feel it best to remove you from the project. And considering our history, I feel it's for the best as well. Rusted AutoParts17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are trying to make me angry now RAP, then you are going to fail but for your information, Bgwhite and Lugnuts are only helping and doing what is best for all, they aren't emotional decision makers like you. At-least I don't abuse editors here like you did and its just the articles moving problem which will be solved soon with good and best reason. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I've advised Assassin to stay away from movies for a few months and work on something else. Unfortunately, looks like Assassin has worked on movies the past few days. Assassin, could you stop. At the bare minimum, it's not a good idea to work on movies while your movie edits are under question. Unless I missed something, I don't see any page moves or redirects created for a few days.
Rusted AutoParts (like your name), from Assassin's and your talk page, it looks like you and him have had some "fun" for awhile. You two clearly can't play together. It's almost to a point where an interaction ban between you needs to be put in place. Rusted, you should walk away.
Assassin are you willing:
To not make ANY redirects or page moves without asking Lugnuts, me or someone acceptable by all parties.
You must ask until Lugnuts, me or someone acceptable by all parties feels you understand the procedures and are able to do redirects and page moves correctly.
Doing ANY redirect or page move without asking will result in a ban from making these kinds of edits. The length of the ban will be up to the admin.
I'm not making any moves and redirects now, just working on films (which I think I'm doing good now, if there is any problem tell me please). And Bgwhite YES I'm agreed with you on your conditions. I'll not make any redirect or move without asking you, Lugnuts or someone other. And let RAP watch my edits, I don't have to afraid of him when I'll be doing good. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 10:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get you angry, I'm merely inputting my opinion on the situation. And it's really not helping when you constantly WP:Assume bad faith on my part. It's not as simple as giving him conditions to abide by. He had been messaged by several editors requesting he cease with his actions and he didn't. My final say in this is simply don't expect to be let off the hook so easily. I won't be watching your edits, the only edits I will see of yours are the contributions you make to the articles in my watch list. I don't abuse editors, I make it known what they're doing is wrong. I only get frustrated when they continue what they're doing, which is unfortunately what you're doing. Rusted AutoParts15:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
My next move will be to levy a long block on Captain Assassin. I'm loth to do an indef, unless (1) someone is pretty blatantly abusing the wiki, e.g. vandalism or spamming or copyvios, or (2) someone repeats disruptive behavior after an initial long block. Should Captain Assassin return from this block and continue the disruption, an indefinite block will quickly be in order. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't completely understand what he's saying, either; I've done my best, but it's difficult. As I told him, his unblock request and discussion make me even more solidly convinced that he's either unable or unwilling to participate in a useful manner. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
From my reading, it appears that he believes that Bgwhite set up some conditions for CA's editing so as not to be blocked, and CA believes that he has followed those conditions. The problem for me is this doesn't seem to be exactly confirmed from the discussion on Bgwhite's talk page, and Bgwhite himself has said that he would block CA if he did certain things. Also, CA has on a number of occasions during the course of this thread pledged not to do something specific, and has then gone on to do something related, but not the exact specific thing, or to be disruptive in another manner entirely. I'm fairly certain that a language barrier is a major part of the problem, accounting for the WP:IDHT-quality of any discussion with CA, but there also seems to be an unwillingness on CA's part to untangle what he doesn't understand. These are reasons why I thought a WP:CIR block was a reasonable step, but it has to be said that, at some point, the unwillingness or inability to understand and communicate becomes indistinguishable from deliberate trolling. WP:AGF would have us give CA the benefit of multiple doubts, but it looks to me that he may have run out of rope, and should retire to edit his native language's Wikipedia, if there is one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
@Nyttend:@Beyond My Ken: Yes, CA does believe correctly that I set up conditions for CA's editing.
In May, CA created a redirect of Fifty Shades of Grey (film) to the book.
On August 12, Vintage Feminist created the article Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) from a userspace draft via AfC.
On August 14 at 20:53 pm, CA copied the (2014 film) article to (film) article.
Also at 20:53, CA deleted the (2014 film) article and made a redirect to point to the (film) article.
At 21:00, CA contacted Vintage Feminist telling about an article that was already there and CA would have the histories merged.
At 21:03, CA reverted himself on both articles.
At 21:08, CA contacted Lugnuts about what he did. The conversation.
At 21:12, CA contacted me about what he did.
In the end, whatever motives CA had, what he was trying to do ended up being the final results.
CA did not live up to the conditions as CA did do a redirect. While he didn't technically do a move, this is essentially what he was trying to do. CA did reverse himself and told Lugnuts and I before anybody noticed. CA did contact the original author of the article and talked about a history merge.
My impression was he goofed, probably out of hold habits. He did reverse course before anybody noticed and because of this, I did not block him, but did say I would next time.
Six month ban is an extreme in this case. I don't believe there was any ill intentions or out to seek glory. He did alert when he realized he goofed up. He did contact Vintage Feminist and told them correctly what should happen. Unless I've missed something, I don't see any other problems with his contributions over the past few days. He did violate the conditions, so if a ban should be enacted, I see one in the 2-4 week range. An interaction ban between Rusted AutoParts and CA should also happen. Both of them can't play with each other. Rusted has already been banned for edit warring and fear both will be banned again if they don't stop. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite see what a six month block will accomplish either. If it is a competence issue, then it's not going to make him more competent in that time, so we just delay the problem rather than address it. Page moves are clearly best left to people who know what they are doing, and Captain Assassin clearly doesn't. There are two realistic options here as I see it, you either indefinitely block him, or you topic ban him from: i) creating articles/redirects ii) moving articles iii) cutting and pasting between articles iv) renaming/split/merge discussions i.e we need to totally remove him from this particular area. Personally I don't think we should exercise the first option unless we try the second first, and then we can observe his competence in other areas of Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, indefinite blocks should be for those who are blatantly abusing the wiki or for those who have already failed to improve despite substantial amounts of time blocked. This isn't blatant vandalism or copyvios, and Assassin previously had only a twelve-hour block. This is basically a two-part solution: either it's the warning that scares him into caring about our standards, or it's the warning that demonstrates that he can't be scared into caring about our standards, but either way it avoids six months of disruption. Bgwhite's conditions for CA's editing mean that Bgwhite wouldn't block if CA avoided certain things; conditions don't mean that an admin is unable to block based on a community discussion. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I fail to see where an extreme six month ban is warranted when a shorter ban accomplishes the same thing. I also fail to see where anything near consensus was found for such a long ban. I'm not arguing against a ban, as I've mentioned above. But, this seems retributive. Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"Indefinite" does not mean "infinite". A short term block (not "ban") is wholly appropriate - when there is reason to believe that the situation that led to the block can be resolved by the time the ban expires. If there is no indication of a time period within which improvement can be done, then a long block, or even an indef, is wholly appropriate - it could be lifted tomorrow if the situation is resolved. - The BushrangerOne ping only21:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
One of problems is that when anything happens CA says "I'll stop... See I've stopped", but then the disruption switches to something else, so it's hard to take his current pleas seriously - they may be heartfelt, but CA doesn't seem to be able to follow through on them. Perhaps the solution might be a conditional unblock on a short leash, with mandatory mentoring? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Having read this discussion and CA's talk page discussions, it is very apparent to me (and I speak with some expertise) that English mastery is very much a factor in this issue. I can see any number of small indicators that his English vocabulary, grammar and comprehension are limited beyond the obvious errors anyone can pick up. This editor neither reads nor understands English at a level necessary to comprehend the how's and why's of the situation in which he finds himself. Moreover, he lacks sufficient written English to be editing in en-wiki. Thus his apologies and explanations are simplistic and repetitive; he's trying to say what he thinks he should, but I doubt he really understands how to do the complex editing he wants to do, much less what he's doing wrong, or why. Case in point: his fixation on credit, something not part of wikipedia beyond edit count. I have no view on what action should be taken, but thought I'd offer a little perspective on his English for whatever it may be worth. --Drmargi (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a very strange case. He'll insist he is sorry, yet immediately start again. Nyttend blocked him for six months, and it seems as if he's refusing it. He's made numerous requests to be unblocked, even though he was informed to step away for a few months. It's hard to believe whether or not he's changed his habits so soon. And I didn't want to weigh in on the whole competency issue, but it does seem he's unaware of a majority of the guidelines here. Rusted AutoParts02:47, 21 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In this edit, a new user (Atluce (talk·contribs)), in their first ever edit as a registered user, dropped over 40K of text into a previously minimal article. The text is oddly formatted, and uses a citation style not standard to Wikipedia, but common among scholarly journals. All in all, I'd guess the text was copied from elsewhere, in violation of Wikipedia copyright guidelines, but I have been unable to find a source for the material. I have asked the author to explain where this text came from, but xe does not appear to be willing to engage. How should a situation like this be handled? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion
Fairly recent I know. But I've seen the error in my ways and according to the issues of previous topic ban, I will not bring ANI incidents again unless unavoidable and not be uncivil, even if another editor is. I've had a lot to deal with relating to family member being in the hospital and was able to cool down mostly during the last week.Lucia Black (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend against modifying or removing the You ban (or the interaction ban) which were discussed and decided here. While it's great that you've cooled down ~ if not great the way you've had to ~ three weeks into three month topic and interaction bans is not far. Honestly, another nine weeks or so away from ANI and AN and Anime subjects is not that long. Heck, staying away from the first two ought to be a pleasure for you! I suggest spending two-and-a-bit months having fun in something completely different; learn and write about photography or philosophy or philately or.... Cheers, LindsayHello06:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There was some level of urgency today when a dispute Lucia was a party to and was undergoing mediation suddenly escalated. It would help if she was allowed to contribute her opinions.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the topic ban should remain in place, as far as ANI and Wikiproject:ANIME are concerned. But - If someone else begins an ANI thread, I would not object to a brief statement from Lucia detailing her position - she is a party to the dispute, after all. Such an exemption should only be for that thread (in which she is named as a party), and only so long as she stays civil and on-point. But I don't know that there will be consensus for that, given her conduct in the thread linked above. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 13:44, 21 Augus (UTC)
Regarding this particular issue, I just find it too ironic. Regardless, I made precautions so that uncivility doesn't start (rather than engaging the editor with uncivility, I'll save the link to my linkbank so that I don't have to bring this to ANI) and I also don't mind the interaction ban itself, but since I am a member of the issue at hand, and rather advantagous of one editor to take oppurtunity.
I'm more worried about the topic ban. Particularly because the issues were mainly on 1 editor (so I can understand the interaction ban) not WP:ANIME itself, which is also a shamme no one specifically from WP:ANIME were able to voice their opinions.Lucia Black (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not a decision for one wikiproject, though - if there was disruption that included a project, it's fair to include that project in a topic ban, with or without discussion from the project's membership. The best advice I could offer would be to edit productively and without drama for the three months (two and change, now), and then let the topic ban expire normally. Now, if the current situation (whatever it is) consists of some other editor taking advantage of your inability to bring something to ANI, or to discuss a wikiproject... well, I imagine Ryulong can make that clear in the discussion - gaming the system is frowned upon. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did18:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Commenting on Ultraexactzz: That's the thing, this issue isn't involving the wikiproject, its just involved with one editor, which is why editors from that wikiproject would've been more relevant. The topic ban simply just doesn't click.Lucia Black (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that your argument is starting to move more towards "The Topic Ban was unjust." instead of "I've learned my lesson/Things have changed." is all the more reason why it needs to stay in place. Sergecross73msg me01:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I already taken the precautions so that incivility won't come from me. I won't bring ANI again, because as editors have stated "waste time". As much as inconclusive the ANI was to specifically why I received action, I gathered the most of it toward uncivility and bringing issues to ANI, and questioning the methods of ANI. I taken account for what I can gather from the ANI. If there's another issue that you see, that I didn't find in ANI, you can state here, and work on it (if not already worked on).Lucia Black (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll be honest with you, I am surprised that you did not question that part of the ban. But it's in place now, and arguing that it's unjust is about the least effective argument you can make while the ban is still in place. If there's a flaw in the ban, you should have questioned it immediately - but even then, that's more of a "The way you worded the ban means that I can't edit these unrelated articles either, can we amend it slightly?" sort of thing, a technical request and not a procedural one on the merits. That's not the argument you're making, though. So, I know it'll be inconvenient, but you really really need to go edit other things for a while. Don't even read the areas under ban (as you clearly have, given comments above). Don't let it stress you out. Go copyedit something, go clear out a maintenance category, go help out with something else. Then come back in a few months ready to not get involved in drama. There is no deadline, and there is no issue so urgent as to require your presence (and no one else's) to solve. It'll be there on your return. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Full duration. Lucia unfortunately has a long history of not getting on too well with her fellow editors, not only on the issues mentioned here though not always quite resulting in a ban or a block. The topic ban should run its full duration. As per UltraExactZZ: If someone else begins an ANI thread, I would not object to a brief statement from Lucia detailing her position - she is a party to the dispute, after all. Such an exemption should only be for that thread (in which she is named as a party), and only so long as she stays civil and on-point. (the bolding is mine). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC).Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
Full duration - Hate to chime in here, but Lucia has come really close to violating her topic ban if not tentatively stepped over the line several times and has been warned for it three times already in this short span. The situations have been reported to Bushranger twice, here and here. The merger was contested and I've repeatedly asked for the status quo for five months. The core problem is application of basic policy for inclusion. The media meets N and GNG, no one questions it, yet it cannot have its own article according to Lucia and Ryulong. Other editors wanted two pages, like Niemti, Dragonzero, Rapunzel-bellflower, etc. Recent commentators like Axem Titanium, opt for separate pages. The A&M Wikiproject has attempted to restrict the creation of pages on notable content. An RFC was clear that A&M's Manual of Style is unable to limit content creation, but Ryulong continues to cite it or use MOS:AM#Page layout as a reason.[59] As it stands, pre-dispute status quo is back. Lucia is upset by that, but policies and a majority of editors support separate pages. Removing the topic ban or the one-way interaction ban is a bad idea because it would result in an immediate continuation of the battleground behavior and more carrying on of how she "hates" me. The content dispute and the behavior are two different things, and policy does not back her argument in the content dispute. Oh, and Lucia is still having issues controlling her posts it seems.[60]ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should get this closed? I see zero chance of getting a consenus supporting this at this rate. It's only going to get ugly with the arguing and whatnot. Uninvolved Admin? Sergecross73msg me15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It was a mistake. Again, I work on smartphone and it doesn't always translate well as the cursor often jumps when it comes to fxing a mistake. My bad. But I'm tired of people assuming the worst faith when it comes to such a thing, other than that occasional mistake I don't do any disruptive edits. Last time I was blocked for 48 hours.
ChrisGualtieri leaves little to no room, he likes to usee the fact that I dislike him strongly and will use it at every turn and constantly tries to make issues of content to affect issues of disruption. I wish these type of comments were removable by admin so that civility can be enforced.Lucia Black (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Why should interaction bans be one-way???? If one is not allowed to interact with the other, the same ban should apply to the other. it has already been proven that he leaves me little room to discuss without interacting with him.Lucia Black (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Rather demeaning comment. But the problem is this editor is allowed to interact in the same discussions. Regardless of what you think of me, it has already been proven that this 1 way interaction ban is just allowing more harrassment.Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That wasn't a comment on you, it was on this discussion. Virtually no support has been drummed up. Rather than continue to complain about how all these bans are unjust, you should just follow everyone else's advice of doing something else for the next couple of months. I'm done arguing with you. There's no point because there's nothing close to a consensus to lift your bans developing here. Sergecross73msg me00:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly, your saying what I say means nothing regardless. I'm not arguing about whether its just or not, I'm saying it could be enforced better. Why leave an opening for another editor to take advantage of the"one way interaction ban". It had already happen a second time and I already attempted to drop this until it was brought back by the person who I'm banned from interacting. Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 24 August 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 just saw the thread on me above, and realized that I am considered topic-banned, via Humanpublic. I'd like to request a removal of the ban. I haven't edited topics related to religion since my block expired. Minorview (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Without getting into the substance of the request, there are many, many ways that editors can make positive contributions to the encyclopedia while making few article edits. bd2412T19:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
@BD2412 - That's certainly true, but the editor has made none of those kinds of edits either. Their entire contribution list since the block ended consists of that one article edit, talk page b.s., and this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
What is "a troll request" supposed to mean? That seems like a failure to AGF. I'd like the topic ban lifted. I've haven't violated it, and I've been free to edit for several months. If you don't think that's enough, you can just say so without calling people trolls. Minorview (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Firstly, you and Humanpublic are the same person, as confirmed by Checkuser evidence, so the section name should read "request to lift my topic ban". Secondly, the "Humanpublic" account is indefinitely blocked, so this request is technically pointless as it stands. Thirdly, BMK's evidence is pretty clear in that you have barely edited anything since your block expired. And finally, there's little evidence that you have changed your ways, and I see evidence that you have remained disruptive, as per comments on your talk page and Strangesad's talk page. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)18:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, because there is no evidence to suggest that you can edit productively anywhere, let alone in this area. Show, by your work in the article space, that you can edit within policy over a period of time, and you might have a case. But no, I think the topic ban needs to stay in place for now. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did19:47, 22 August 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.
This passed almost without comment, so I thought I'd mention it here. A couple of days ago, DYK included the hook:
... that British manufacturer Karrimor's formidable reputation for ground-breaking outdoor pursuit equipment was a direct result of its location in Lancashire, and a CEO who was an avid climber and trekker?
Should we have stronger guidance against this sort of thing? Or should we maybe go the other way and just issue a rate-card? Formerip (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the above at NPOVN and saw how it looked on the main page. I was dumbfounded that such puffery could be deemed acceptable. The archive showing how it appeared is here (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Ugh. I'd love to get more details on this. Do we have any reason to think that this was the result of corruption, or was it just a very poor editorial judgment?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
* Well, this is interesting. The hook (posted by User:FT2) was originally promoted into the prep queue but then de-peacockised by User:Alex Shihhere, who was then scolded for doing it on his talk page by User:FT2 (the discussion is still on Alex and FT2's talk pages here and here). Alex then apologised to FT2 and re-inserted the promotional language here while it was on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It had also been raised on DYK talk here. I entirely agree the language was inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
*Shouldn't this all be moved to WP:AN then given its overtones, so Alex Shih and FT2, who apparently are administrators who did not administer very well, can answer the community and any future remedy can be explored. Rather then spread here and yon? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this discussion implying that FT2 expanded Karrimor from a short article tagged as an advert to a much larger, detailed article for promotional reasons? Or at least that they wrote the hook in that way for those reasons? That's a rather heavy implication to throw out against a respected former member of ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has evidence to suggest that FT2 had some sort of promotional intent with that hook. But, when read cold and without context on the main page, one would expect to see a tag afterword that read "(Promoted Content)", or whatever the trend on the interwebs is at present. There might be very good editorial reasons for including language like that in the article (though I would question the judgment behind those reasons), but that doesn't translate to the Main Page. The bottom line is that this looks awful and someone should know better. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did14:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's accusing anyone of that (looks like FT2 did a good job on the article), more that any language that could be seen as promotional shouldn't have found its way onto the main page in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Update - Apologies, took over an hr not 30 mins. Diffs took time to find, I found this got forum shopped (or so it seems, at least 2 places, maybe more) round the wiki first. Checking what I've written, then posting. FT2(Talk | email)15:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not normally part of the bash-DYK bandwagon, but using this kind of language in a hook ("formidable reputation for ground-breaking ... equipment) is very troubling to me. That being said, it's premature to be talking about banning people from DYK, since this may be a one-time mistake. Probably best to just warn them against doing this again for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the first I have heard of the threads about this. A bit of dialog would have cut down unproductive time for all of us. To respond:
General comment on strong tone
In some cases (and I agree it's a very small minority), strong terms seem to be the NPOV characterization of their sources. When that happens, and if it's not editor hyperbole but does appear to be the consistent mainstream/widely/near-universal significant view, and reliable sources do not seem to be excitable fringe publications, strong words may actually be an accurate description of the view of the source, or even the mainstream view. That said, we let facts speak for themselves ("X says Y") and we should be cautious with introducing our own exceptional views and tones. Rarely, facts and sources do universally seem to concur and use such terms. Then not conveying that (ie: watering down because of personal views that we shouldn't represent sources or views as stated if they are "too strong") can lead to a different but still POV bias. It's far less common (since most topics are not universally described that way when studied via high quality sources) but no less capable of being POV. Editors need to watch for bias both ways and check cites, to accurately represent the topic.
In this case the complaining editors don't seem to have done that job properly
No-one of the complainants made any attempt to talk about their concerns, or to see if we could address them. I'm well known over many years as very approachable and willing to talk about article concerns, move to talk page, seek uninvolved input, give good faith, even retract until resolved, if there's a problem. Nobody tried.
Nobody said a thing so I found out only at the "last minute" and had to respond on that basis
User:Simon Burchellraised a concern on a page I don't watch. He didn't try to notifying me or discuss his concerns with me in any way, at any time, to see if we could address them. He didn't indicate at any point in his post that he'd checked any sources or formed a view on the sources, or that he had any issue with the words not matching the sources, or even that he'd read the article to check it out. The hook was only in prep at that time, not even in the queue, so he could have asked or notified me easily and we'd have sorted it out then. I would have put it on hold for that, unasked.
Simon's comment seemed/seems to be based on personal unchecked belief unlinked to any reliable source noted by him, that the hook seemed in his view peacock-y. He didn't seem to have examined the sources behind the words. He didn't discuss that these had been reviewed and specifically confirmed by an uninvolved DYK reviewer as backing the article and hook. His comment didn't suggest he did any review of cites, contradictory knowledge, or point to any specific mischaracterization where the hook did not match the sources or other significant views existed in other (omitted) sources. It was an appropriate concern to check and raise, to be sure, but one checks one's impressions before putting them into Wikipedia. I did. DYK reviewers did. Simon's comment suggested he may not have.
Also, again, it was completely unchecked - Alex too had done no checking of the article or cites, even though the original post made clear it was personal belief. (Alex later apologized for that: The change appeared to be trivial at the initial glance)
I found this out only by chance, after DYKBot notified me it hit Main Page and was in a form that did not convey the reader-enticing tension of the original sources. I did not say "put it back", or any kind of pressure. I posted to Alex's talk page my disappointment that he hadn't bothered to ask me or even notify me to talk first, I then identified for him the exact source cites-all plainly in the article-that it was based on so he could see why it had been as it was ("I wish you'd asked me... If there was a question, couldn't you have let me know of the discussion here, so I could point out cites or locate the ones you felt missing, rather than water down the accuracy of the hook"). That was all I wrote.
The Main page hook was therefore based on my view and that of not one, but two independent reviewers who checked the cites and their representation themselves.
After this, I was not notified of the thread at Jimbo's talk page. I was not notified of the thread at NPOV/N. So I could not respond sooner. This was the first thread anyone told me about.
Bullet notes/cites:— evidence of care and accuracy, evidence of non-OR/synth, relevant policies, and (in)accuracy of core complaint
Evidence of care - note that the article is clearly carefully written to be balanced. For example where negative comment occurs in the same articles it's also carefully noted ("albeit poorly managed" for example), even though this was a throwaway minor comment in the source. It is an article covering a business that did in fact attain the renown described, and attested by numerous reliable sources (some connected, many not connected, some very dispassionate, distinct, and reputed) without any significant dissent. From sources I could find online, there was in fact no significant dissent at all. The hook summarized a dominant uncontested mainstream view, expressed universally, whether by Management Today, The Independent or well known sources within its own field.
Not original research/novel view/fringe/synth - The position was also not "novel" or a synthesis (WP:NOR); it was explicitly stated in exactly such terms in numerous concurring sources, both within or far outside its field, without dissenting views. (WP:NPOV: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Words like "legendary" and "tremendous" and "world renowned" and "most famous X ever" convey the kind of words one finds universally.
Relevant policies seem to suggest support (albeit with caution) -WP:NPOV / WP:V state: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care ... Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Here there was care - and a lot of research to look for lesser or opposing views in RS (see above). With no exception, every view found that stated an opinion on standing, was a concurring opinion in similar strong terms.
Last for those who didn't read carefully - If those complaining re-read the article, they'd have seen it clearly signifies the reputation of a now-collapsed past company - as did the hook(reputation was not reputation is). Again, this was done carefully. There is a company of the same name (Sports Direct bought the name and intellectual property), but the article is exceptionally careful to minimize the risk of attributing to the present company, the accurately-stated reputation of the failed business of 1960 - 1996 which fell into insolvency 9 years ago in 2004. Go read.
Johnbod: I think your complaint is more that it didn't sufficiently make clear "prior to its receivership" or some such, ie the characterization is not peacockry but the applicable company needed to be clearer. (NPOV trumps other policies; rarely, that may mean we describe that perceptions were that strong, if sources suggest that would accurately represent significant views.) If the hook was inappropriate, how would you explain that the only two editors (both uninvolved) to have explicitly said they reviewed the cites, both seem to have felt them suitable, even though they surely share all our strong dislike of peacockry. If the description itself is mischaracterized, as opposed to "may imply current company has that reputation too", did you check any sources to form your view that you "entirely agree the language was inappropriate". Of course it's possible it was right for the article but not for DYK - if so that would indeed be a "DYK reviewer's guideline" discussion, and I'd encourage it. (I'm not a DYK regular)
User:Simon Burchell: You complained after that this didn't have discussion, but never asked me or tried to discuss it even though you were the one who first commented. You went to NPOV/N and complained there and still didn't notify me or talk about your concerns. In all these posts, not one actual cite or fact in any, and not one notification or attempt to talk between us. Then you complain it got reinstated by those who did check it. Duh.
(I think they are all aware of this thread, if not can someone notify them for me)
In summary: We see peacock terms so much, we (I too) assume when reliable sources concur in strong positive views, it's peacockry. This article, on a dissolved company, was not, and the reviewers who did check cites, concurred. FT2(Talk | email)16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And have you notified any of the people you make points about above? Not me for sure. I don't need to check sources to see the language, in Wikipedia's voice, was completely inappropriate for a DYK hook. In the article itself it is attributed to sources (a bit vaguely) and referenced and that seemed more of less ok. The article begins by saying it is about a "brand" and the brand continues, though under different ownership - if anything that the original owners are out of the picture makes the hook worse, since all the praise related to the old glory days of the brand, but this is not clear in the hook. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely a good idea to avoid words like that in an Encyclopaedia. Looking through the article content there seems many such words quoted from a variety of sources - not to be harsh but it rather reads like a press release :( As I said, try to avoid using such words or extensive quotes and rely on proper encyclopedic tone. As John says; in the hook you adopted Wikipedia's voice. Which is definitely inappropriate. Can you explain why you chose to do this? --Errant(chat!)16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Not really. Over-the-top adjectives can be toned down while still remaining true to the essence of what the source reports: "famous" becomes "noted", "extremely" becomes "considerable", etc. and nothing of value is lost. In those cases where peacock terms simply must be used, direct quotation takes it out of Wikipedia's voice and puts it in the voice of the source. (One should also consider whether a source given to superlatives is all that reliable to begin with, or whether their reliability lies in, say, news items and not so much in features. Or whether their reporting of hard facts is reliable, not their evaluation of quality is not. How is is possible, for instance, to say with any authority that a business's success is a "direct result" of any one or two specific factors? Those kinds of connections are difficult to establish with any certainty, and should always be taken with more than a grain of salt, no matter what the source is -- unless direct and specific evidence via surveys or research is the basis for the statement. Correlation -- if it is that -- is not the same as causation.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Karrimor contains a para in the lead reading: "By the 1970s and again in the 1990s Karrimor was widely considered a world-renowned innovator and manufacturer of outdoor pursuit products, with an exceptional track record and a formidable reputation in its field. From the 1990s, mainstream media, business media, and enthusiast publications routinely used terms such as "legendary", "tremendous" tradition, "outstanding", and "world renowned" in connection with both Karrimor and its products." (my italics) This is unreferenced, which it should not be, though there are some relevant refs lower down; how adequate I'm not sure. The italic bits do at least attribute the peacockery to others, but in a DYK hook this is often not possible (though it wasn't attempted in this case), and what may be acceptable in an article is not in a hook. I take a softer line on WP:PEACOCK than many, but good referencing and attribution are essential. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The other problem, of course, is that the hook suggests (I know it says "was", but that's not obvious to parse) that Karrimor is a high-quality brand today - which it isn't; it's one of Sports Direct's many "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" brands, and the goods are made in China now. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod - yet again you didn't bother to read before assuming bad faith. "And have you notified any of the people you make points about above?" See where it says rather clearly "(I think they are all aware of this thread, if not can someone notify them for me)". In this thread, you don't check before diving in with ad hominen, and you next to assert you don't need to check sources to know if a wording characterizes them neutrally.
Its an old established Wiki principle that if it isn't clear X is a murderer, don't use the term as it's a strong one. But if a competent court and appeals process ruled they are, and no significant reputable dissenting views seem to exist, then that is usually the word to use, strong or otherwise. Therefore many articles start "X is a convicted murderer" even if strong. We do it even if some readers may not notice nuances that the intro briefly touches on. Same for dissolved companies that have unusual, unanimous, positive, acclaim. We don't water that down either in contradiction to cites and NPOV, in the absence of some actual source or verifiable significant view. We do check carefully since exceptional claims need exceptional sources. Did you check the sources? No. You don't think you need to know if our key mandatory policy governing the tone of writing, WP:NPOV, has something to say. The reviewers did, and the cites are, as you'd expect, fully provided in the main body (both reviewers noted this and both state explicitly they had reviewed sources).
Errant - see point above to Johnbod. Also note, I wrote the article and hook. It was cleared by two reviewers - the second one was asked to review and given cites to do so, which was in a rush as it was on the main page and misrepresenting NPOV. His immediate response was that he apologized for failing to discuss or check, and that having reviewed the cites, he had reverted himself. If all sources say "IBM is a technology company", we don't need to start IBM with "According to the US and UK government and Forbes[1][2][3] IBM is a technology company". If all sources unanimously seem to say X product is ground breaking, then we represent that by saying the same, and citing it. If all sources seem to say X was world renowned or had a tremendous reputation or was a world leader, we say that, too. That's different from constructing the view ourselves (ie WP:SYNTH). See also comment to Beyond My Ken.
Beyond My Ken - Thank you. You say (and I agree) Over-the-top adjectives can be toned down while still remaining true to the essence of what the source reports: "famous" becomes "noted", "extremely" becomes "considerable", etc. and nothing of value is lost. This didn't happen. Why not? Because the one person who queried it while at DYK, and asked about it long before Main Page (or even DYK queue), at DYK Prep, didn't bother to ask me about it, or check his cites, or do anything to suggest his concern was more than personal view (WP:NOR). I agree with what you say, but it passed a DYK review, then I saw a changed version on Main Page, and found an uninformed query and an unchecked reply, and upon checking cites the reverting reviewer reversed his mind. Had notification happened, none of this would be needed. To underline that, it's a week later now, and this has been forum-shopped at Jimbo and NPOV/N and this today is the first I've been notified or able to comment. I myself would have withdrawn or put it on hold, if I'd known there was a query at the time. By then, it was too late. See my comment to Black Kite for what we can do in future, though.
Black Kite - As the article barely says much about the brand - which is almost all that's left - except that it's now made in China, that's stating the obvious. Like spoilers in plot summaries, we don't (and often can't) insulate readers against failure to read. If we should, on the main page, that's an important DYK reviewer discussion (which I'd encourage for sure) but not an AN issue.
Yadda-yadda. What bad faith? Laziness perhaps - I won't bother to unpick the logic behind "I think they are all aware of this thread, if not can someone notify them for me" - apparently attributing mind-reading abilities, and the responsibility to do things for you, to other readers of this page. Yes, it was reviewed by two reviewers, but they were wrong to pass the hook - it happens. They were somewhat strong-armed, & should have resisted. You still don't seem to see the problem with the hook as a main page hook, though it has been explained sufficiently above. As someone on Wikipediocry says (naturally they are hot on the trail), if you had explained that the Karrimor products are now cheap crap, but were once great, that wouldn't have been so bad, but the article doesn't do this, still less the hook. To say "the article barely says much about the brand" is nonsense - both most of the article and all of the hook are about the products and the brand, not the company. There are a lot of statements that are ok in an article, with proper attribution, context, referencing etc, but certainly not ok as a flat statement in a DYK hook in the voice of Wikipedia. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I see. And your reliable sources for "Karrimor products are now cheap crap" is at which links exactly? I looked to get coverage and views on the new post-2004 company's product quality from reliable sources. If it exists, please add it. But don't criticize those who stick to WP:VERIFIABLE sources. Also if you want to make absurd personal attacks (strong arming indeed) then gods sake check facts. One reviewer never discussed but reviewed and moved on, never speaking with me about it at all. The other was simply told I wished he'd asked me first, and given snippets of the cites backing the hook wording, and without discussing with me or any other dialog formed his own decision to change his mind. FT2(Talk | email)01:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not writing the article, am I? If you can dig up laudatory reviews from the "mainstream media, business media, and enthusiast publications" of the 1960s to 1980s" you should be able to find more recent reviews, but nothing is said. On strong-arming, the diffs are above, let people make up their own minds (also re who is making personal attacks). What date is the model of "Karrimor hiking trainer" in the lead pic, by the way? The photo has a 2012 date, the shoes looks new, & have pretty 2012-ish styling to my eyes. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your point is made. You feel the article should have contained views that don't seem to exist in reliable sources but you "know" are right (I might or might not "know" too but I keep my personal impressions right where they belong: off Wikipedia and away from mainspace content editing). So in your view WP:V and WP:NOR don't apply to you or any editor claiming to "know" differently from sources. You demand I insert this unsourced unverifiable negative WP:NOR but asked for sources to back that OR - well, you could care less, "I'm not writing the article". Well, I was, I found no sources, so I didn't include anything on the matter. If you feel someone should add a negative, it helps if you can show it's sourceable. I mentioned that I "could not find" sources. I invited you to try. You reply with withering sarcasm that if sources could be found for the dissolved 1960-1990s company it's my failing ("you should be able to") if they aren't found/don't exist for a different company of the same name founded 10 years on. As for the shoe, nothing like a failed attempt to add more fuel to a failed criticism. The shoe is there for one reason only - it was already there, added by someone else when the article was a stub. Ask the article's old author, if you want to know more. FT2(Talk | email)02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your persistent refusal to actually address the points made by others is unattractive and unconvincing. Where do I make any demands? The issue here is the inappropriate DYK hook you created and, er, defended very robustly during the DYK process, and continue to do by implication here, without actually making any arguments for it. Do you now think the wording of the DYK hook was appropriate? Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your point is made again. "Er, defended very robustly during the DYK process" seems to be your way of characterizing a single post; namely a list of cites showing an editor why the wording had been as it was. It was written after the DYK process was complete, when the item was already on the Main Page and I hadn't had any notification of any change or query being made - hence couldn't have spoken sooner - and part of its reason was that on-wiki discussion made very clear that the change resulted from an unchecked assumption (for which he quickly apologized). This was all disclosed. [Disclosure: a second post exists after the correction to note the correction was incomplete]. Your final question was asked by someone else and I have answered it. FT2(Talk | email)13:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Afterthought and quitting this mini-thread - actually, all of this is very clear from the above links. I gently corrected until it became gradually obvious this mini-thread was unlikely to result in high quality dialog anyway. I think your comment "Yadda Yadda... (blatant misrepresent mind-reading, 'er..' blatant misrepresent dyk dialog, pay little attention to diffs, demand insertion of unsourced negative WP:NOR that you "know" is correct), and subsequent comments having a similar style, was what did it. I'm sorry you aren't happy with my replies. Perhaps avoiding POINTy exaggerations and mis-descriptions like these would have helped you. If you cannot yet understand basic WP:NOR, use WP:HISTORY pages, or take note of uncontentious plainly visible diffs and comments, nor query them without gross mis-description and straw men, then I think I'm going to leave the mini thread around here. Sorry if that is not how you want it. FT2(Talk | email)13:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Commenting briefly. (i) Why is this at WP:AN? Because it was mentioned on Jimbo's talk page? Open-ended discussion (and walls of text) about these issues won't get anywhere unless someone has a proposal that requires administrative action or a community discussion of sanctions or restrictions (unlikely, I would have thought). (ii) Discussion of the article should take place at the article talk page. Discussion of the hook, aimed at catching such things in future, should take place at WT:DYK. (iii) Having looked at this, my view is that the word 'formidable' should have been dropped from the hook and the dates when it had that reputation added (to avoid the impression that it has that reputation now). (iv) The article does have problems unrelated to its DYK appearance, but I'll mention those on the article talk page, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There may well be improvements, if new sources are found. i,ii - Administrative not merits, no comment needed. iii - makes sense, but when a only comes to light at Main Page itself, there isn't much to be done except ask those who reviewed to recheck cites they didn't look at, and see if they think the hook fairly and neutrally represents them - the reviewer considered then that he'd incorrectly removed them. Notification while at prep by those involved in complaining or responding would have been crucial and allowed discussion (or dates added like you suggest as a resolution) while "on hold". That failed to happen because nobody thought to let me know about an edit to the hook, and the edit or issue wasn't mentioned on the hook subpage I was watching either, nor the article talk page, nor tagged in the article. (I'd have put it on hold myself if I'd known.) The reviewer apologized, and the lapse seems atypical. Notification of the other threads was important and that should have happened, but isn't a DYK matter. iv - DYK isn't FA quality, there will be improvements possible for sure. I'd been updating from a valuable new source covering detail of the "missing years" 1993-1999 (a local newspaper's searchable archive) when notified the article was now on the main page (Mainpaged 00:00 Aug 17, Tag commented out as a result 05:25 Aug 17). The article was tagged "in use" (DYK isn't static). Perhaps oxygen will reveal other sources. I don't doubt oxygen will help improve it, as it would any but the very best articles. Haven't read your comments, but look forward to doing so. FT2(Talk | email)02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
From near the top: "Shouldn't this all be moved to WP:AN then given its overtones, so Alex Shih and FT2, who apparently are administrators who did not administer very well, can answer the community and any future remedy can be explored. Rather then spread here and yon? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" But I agree with you. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
My Fault but I make no apology, why not lance it with a centralized discussion, that apparently deals with claimed corruption of the main page by two admins. Sometimes good things happen, when we reason together -- sometimes we can be forward thinking, when we come together and give notice of scattered discussion to each other, as this forum does -- that's the hope (which springs eternal), anyway. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
(I might not have done it in your shoes, but the logic's sound and the intent good. Concurring that this was a sane view a reasonable editor might take. FT2(Talk | email)13:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC))
The proposal seems to be that self-congratulatory twaddle is ok so long as there are sources that verify the claims. No—not at the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and particularly not on the main page. The question of whether one brand of running shoe has a "formidable reputation" cannot be resolved by scientific investigation—verification boils down to what commentary currently occurs in sources that might be reliable, and it's unlikely that any source has conducted a serious investigation comparing the reputations of companies making a particular product. However, that issue is not the core of the matter—what matters is that any manufacturer of running shoes could find some puffery that can verifiably be applied to their product, but we should not take such an approach. An encyclopedia should focus on facts like how many shoes have been sold, rather than whether a company has a formidable reputation (for how long has that been true? does any similar company also have a formidable reputation? does the formidable reputation have any measurable effect?). Questions of good/bad faith are irrelevant—what matters is providing some guidance for DYK hooks that are used in the future. There is no need to have a formal guideline, but this discussion should provide a clear mandate that text that may appear promotional in nature should not be used. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No. The proposal is that NPOV overrides all but BLP, V, OR, NOT etc. Your point is a straw man as nobody's suggested for a moment that it's ok "if sources verify the claims" (you can find sources for any view!). The point is, if there is an exceptional claim, and it has exceptional sources (wide ranging, reputable, unambiguous, unqualified), and even a diligent search reveals no dissenting voices then NPOV says we call a murderer a murderer, a death a death, a ground-breaking innovation that changed a field, a ground-breaking innovation, and a renowned company with a "very strong" or "tremendous" reputation, a company that has a "very strong" or "tremendous" reputation. We don't hype up, but the rare occasion it's an accurate NPOV representation of unambiguous dispassionate sources with a reputation for level heads, and no dissent, then NPOV governs and we don't rewrite downwards either. As Ken says above, there are compromises, and I agree. But those require discussion to highlight the matter and no discussion happened as no notification happened. As for "unlikely", no need to guess or introduce original research when we have facts. For example, Management Today ran a national competition for Best UK Factory - you think they didn't consider that a "serious investigation" in judging? If the sources were all guessing randomly, then there would be others less favorable. There were none. I looked. It doesn't mean none will ever be found. But I couldn't find any dissenting views, and we report what reliable sources say, if reputable and credible, not what we (WP:NOR) think they should have said. FT2(Talk | email)02:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, given the fact it's considered not just perfectly OK but a violation not to utilise WP:OR (in the sense of "Wikipedia makes this up only for use on Wikipedia") when it comes to capitalisation/formatting for band/group names, album/song names, and even on occasion personal names in the name of the almighty WP:MOS, I'm afraid this line of argument, although IMHO correct, will wind up making Sisyphus look like an exceptionally successful guy when it came to rock-pushing. - The BushrangerOne ping only03:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your comment seems to mainly be a complaint about MOS. Paraphrased you seem to be saying, "you're right but WP:NOR is ignored in WP:MOS areas XYZ, so I'm afraid it's futile to try and follow it elsewhere". And if we don't follow it elsewhere either, will that help NOR regain any lost respect at MOS? FT2(Talk | email)07:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to smile, kind of, because the whole of NPOV and BLP sometimes spits into a stiff breeze, every time we do something that someone else doesn't want. It's unexpected in this case, since in fact my only involvement was to write an article that NPOV represents sources (sorry, it does, and nobody seems to have shown otherwise, the most anyone's said is it might be toned slightly softer without changing accuracy - Beyond My Ken, Carcharoth), summarize it into a hook that was reviewed as "all good", and later pointing out to a reviewer who later modified it without notifying me or opportunity for discussion, on a clearly well intentioned but unchecked basis, that the wording was based on sources that could be verified for himself, which satisfied him. He apologized and reverted. If there is an issue that DYK criteria don't handle correctly characterized positive hooks, or users aren't always notified when modification happens, then that's a DYK guideline debate, and perhaps a check that it was WP:AGF and not WP:GAME which should be pretty obvious here. Hard to see any issue once bad faith is ruled out, beyond possible DYK guideline dialog. So yeah, I am a bit surprised to find a week long discussion on it suddenly appearing, or that it got WP:DRAMAtized, then forum-shopped at Jimbo's page, then moved to NPOV/N, yet nobody bothered to tell me it was being discussed anywhere until this thread. Double surprising as DYK hooks by their nature aren't expected to do more than entice reading (no cites, 200 chars). But unexpected things happen now and then, it's okay. FT2(Talk | email)13:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
And you think that for those rare occasions where it is verifiable that a company has a formidable reputation (an undefinable term), that it would be helpful to say so on Wikipedia's main page? That's where editorial judgment comes in. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, actually. I do. We do our readers no service if we provide misinformation or watered down information, under the guise of "nanny knows best". The article on "penis" shows a penis. The article on abortion discusses both sides of abortion. Articles on books, plays, and movies, had their "spoiler" templates removed long before you started the account you now use, and a reason for that was that users come here expecting neutral information. With spoilers, consensus was that apprehensions about users' poor judgment and "making it more obvious" were deemed not to trump NPOV, and not a good reason to have subjectivity affecting mainspace presentation (see WP:SPOILER#Why_spoiler_warnings_are_not_used bullets 1+4 for that outcome)
What goes for articles goes for the main page, where we showcase our work. We don't serve our readers by making Main Page subjective and the rest NPOV. The Main Page has had Cartman Gets an Anal Probe featured on it. Why? Because all articles are equal and to the same policies; and a cartoon about an anal probe and one about Stalin are, as articles, equally capable of showcasing our work (the former actually more so if you think about it, as it shows even trite and crude material can be written about informatively). Likewise a DYK about a company that sources show having had a universally acclaimed reputation should be represented by us as having had that reputation, not a lesser one that we water down when this happens, not because of NPOV, OR, V, CITE or any other good core policy reason but simply because "Sources support that it's correct but some readers might need a nanny to read Wikipedia". Again, we do our readers no service by treating them as incompetent. Your idea is that they cannot read correctly, would not notice the articles' clear statements about recent times, and would be misinformed. Our role is to inform, not to dilute beyond that required by sources and encyclopedic content, for fear a reader lacks a brain.
Now, if DYK has particular rules about surprising content or hooks, or hooks that contain points which may be misunderstood by a careless reader, then if it's consensus, that's fine. But ask how easily a DYK review would have picked that point up here. Generally, almost always, in the absence of a consensus saying otherwise, an article written in line with core policies (NPOV/NOR/V/etc) will best be summed up with a DYK hook written in line with those policies. If otherwise, that's what DYK guidelines would be for and what DYK reviewers consider. Ask at DYK what consensus is, on surprising hooks. Then, if the debate says there is an issue, let's see what we want to change, if anything, about the main page. FT2(Talk | email)06:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If there's very little editorial judgement at DYK, who decides what part of the article is to be used as the hook? That seems like editorial judgement to me. Not typically on the part of the one reviewing the DYK, but editorial judgement is certainly used to determine what goes to DYK. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 07:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Addressing one of the meta-issues above, it just cannot be true that anyone expects an investor newspaper or marketing news to write like an encyclopedia. That's not their job, but it is ours. Moreover, we cannot copy their words, or their phrases, without quotes -- we must paraphrase and none too closely. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
I just thought I'd notify any edit filter managers that AnomieBOT kept repeatedly triggering that filter on the page Inna discography, so I removed a ref. Someone who knows more about this filter or what it does might want to look into this. Ginsuloft (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
If "top100.blog" is included to the edit (the link that AnomieBOT was romaniantop100.blogspot.com/), it's disallowed. Blogspot sites are not considered reliable sources anyways. Elockid(Talk)23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Filters such as this can make vandalism more difficult to revert. Most of the "singles" section was missing; I've restored it. Peter James (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Elockid, whether or not it is considered a reliable source is invalid if the purpose of the link is to verify accuracy of an otherwise established article. Primary sources "are" allowed, including blogs for this purpose. What I suggest doing in the future, Ginsuloft, is replacing such links with "shortened" versions to the same destination using any one of the free URL shortening sites (like is.gd). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not. If it was considered valid, then there would more widespread use. Even when checking Special:Linksearch, it's not seeing any use. Elockid(Talk)00:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The far better option would be to find a reference that isn't at a blog. The reason blogs aren't considered reliable is that I can go register a blog, post something, and then go to an article and use that blog post as proof that whatever I said in the article is correct. If the fact in question needs a blog to verify its accuracy... honestly, it probably doesn't need to be in the article. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did01:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Romaniantop100 on blogspot is one of the specific sites that that edit filter was written to prevent being inserted. It's a known forgery, created by User:Innano1 after the actual Romania Top 100 chart ceased publication. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013 contains most of the discussion. I removed all references to the blogspot.ro versions of the chart, and apparently missed a few of the blogspot.com hosted versions. Technical 13, I find your advice to Ginsuloft reprehensible: hoax sources aren't permitted anywhere, and promoting trickery to get past an edit filter is not the way to go.—Kww(talk) 05:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that information Kww. My suggestion was for verified valid sources that are erroneously picked up by a filter, but apparently wouldn't work anyways... I feel more informed now. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I've cleaned the straggling references to the chart out, and taken care of its new partner in crime, romaniatop100.wordpress.com. I'm surprised no one pinged me on this: it would have been taken care of more quickly.—Kww(talk) 06:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Odd. Weren't the URL shorteners blacklisted in general? Let's see... httpX//is.gd/uEsJCz ... yeah, it's blacklisted. (There's another easy way to add blacklisted urls directly, no redirect required, which I'll leave as a homework exercise) Wnt (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Is the problem here that no one can close it because we all participated? A 472:114 ratio makes it difficult to find active editors that didn't voice an opinion, but that doesn't mean we don't have to get this closed somehow.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If I had simply !voted I'd have had no problem closing it, but I commented a number of times in various venues. There must be someone ambivalent about this enough to close it, though. And they don't have to be an admin. Black Kite (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not actually a snow close -- while the main questions are straightforward the plethora of subquestions at the bottom with unsegregated responses will make a proper close time consuming. I'll try to do it in the upcoming week if no one else gets to it first. NE Ent17:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Earlier today I closed Talk:Zürich#Requested move 4, finding consensus for the requested move. My closure has been questioned by two participants. One suggested that I should have discounted votes premised wholly or partially on WP:OFFICIALNAME, and found the smaller majority that would result from such discounting to constitute a lack of consensus. The other suggested that I should have extended the time for the discussion. I would appreciate if someone would review my close and let me know if I made the wrong call. Cheers! bd2412T00:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What an absurd idea, that we should throw out votes purely because they advocate a specific position. Barring improprieties (e.g. socking, meatpuppets, most IPs "because they can easily be gamed"), individual votes should never be discounted, unless of course they're retracted. It's quite obvious that the general tone of discussion at the talk page was in favor of moving, and you would have done quite a disservice to the discussion participants if you had closed it any other way. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a good close to me. If the previous move discussion had been more recent, a more convincing consensus might have been necessary, but as it was, I think you captured the discussion and properly weighted previous consensus. My only qualm would be your consideration of tossing IP contributions purely on the basis of them being an IP. If there is no reason to believe that they are a sock/meat puppet, I believe they should be treated the same as a registered editor. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs03:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually think the close was fine; I was watching it, and it looked like that was how it was going to turn out. That being said, there's a formal move review process; especially as one has been initiated there, this thread is redundant. -- tariqabjotu12:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps another admin more familiar with how this works will correct me, but that page doesn't look like an AfD, even one that is supposedly nominating multiple pages. It probably got "off the radar" because it's not properly tied to anything. Maybe I'll be enlightened.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to do a procedural close, this AFD is improperly formatted and was not added to the AFD log for that day. It also proposes to remove an entire category of articles without tagging them or listing them at AFD, so it is pretty much unactionable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't been deleted before unless it was under a different name. It's completely unsourced, but a quick scan reveals that his work is sold on Amazon, ITunes etc., so I'm guessing there's possibly some notability there (African artists are notoriously difficult to dig web-based news stories up for, unfortunately). Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I now realize it was actually my mistake to think it was deleted. The page move plus the incorrect templates were what caught me off guard (confirmation bias). I totally forgot that the old history obviously shows up even if he moved the page from his userspace. Ginsuloft (talk) 20:25, 24 August 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.
This what I get when I try to create the category. I suspect 'shit' in the name 'Washita' is being objected to:
"Permission error
"You do not have permission to create pages, for the following reason:
The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.
If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:
Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email.
Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. "
Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:15, 24 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Hi all. There is one backlog that should never happen: CAT:UNBLOCK. Until this is cleared, please take a look at that page whenever you block accounts. If you block an account, go review an unblock request. If we follow that process, the backlog is guaranteed to be eliminated. JehochmanTalk13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
There are only a small handful of admins who patrol the category on a regular basis so it would certainly be helpful to have fresh eyes there. I do disagree that the backlog should "never happen" as many times an admin is actively discussing the sanctions with the blocked editor, which means they will appear in the category until the discussion reaches its conclusion. This could take several days and certainly inflates the amount of open requests appearing at WP:RFU. It's better to take the time to make sure the blocked editor understands why they were blocked and provide information as to how they can avoid the same mistakes in the future than to have a clean backlog.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots16:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the real problem is the constant clog of rename based unblock requests. It makes the real block discussions difficult to find among the sea of promotional usernames that are unlikely to ever get unblocked. Maybe a separate category for username unblocks is in order.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Part of the trouble is that when the standard questions are put to the blocked editors, the said editors promptly vanish for a week or so. Could be holidays, might be in hospital, we don't know. But the request sits there until they turn up again or someone gets fed up and declines. As to some of the others, they require knowledge that not all of us have. I can spot certain sockmasters, but others I for one know nothing about. So I leave them to someone who does. And so on... Peridon (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've closed all the open AfDs that were overdue, but there's one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Denton) that's been open for eleven days now and it'd be better if someone else closed it - the subject is American Rugby football, which I know so little about that it's tricky for me to evaluate some of the arguments made. Ta. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are a number of outstanding edit requests at Talk:Chelsea Manning (some, on technical matters, added recently by me). Given the nature of the subject, and the high level of traffic on the talk page, you may wish to avoid allowing a backlog to build up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to create a disambiguation page for the genus Acis (botany). There is a page Acis_(Plant) but for consistency references to ...wiki/Acis ought to go there. Apparently this is on a restriction list - I'm not aware of any other meaning of the word.
Update I see there is a redirect page going straight to Acis and Galtea - why did my attempt to link to wiki/Acis get to a page saying Acis is restricted then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnrcrellin (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
When did he get indefinitely banned over here, by the way? His userpage links to the Arbcom decision that banned him for a year in 2009, as well to a statement from Arbcom noting that a block he'd been given "will now be converted to an indefinite block", but it doesn't link anywhere that resulted in an indefinite ban, whether from some sort of official decision (whether community or Arbcom) or from a community unblock discussion that resulted in a no-dont-unblock result. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
My read: The decision requires he contact the committee to set up probation before resuming editing, so he's banned until he does that. NE Ent09:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion
I am puzzled by the non-existence of a page (not even a redirect) for a popular software EasyPHP, which I just recreated. I couldn't find any related deletion talk and I can remember there was an extensive article about EasyPHP a while back. Was this deleted by mistake or did I miss something? --Tachfin (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick replies, I added some references. I know it's generally not a good idea to re-create a deleted article but this so popular that I suspected a mistake as there was no discussion specifically about the article. --Tachfin (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I said no AFD specifically about EasyPHP, the discussion was about "Comparison of WAMPs", wasn't clear -for me- if people were discussing the deletion of "related articles" too. --Tachfin (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree "very popular" =/= "notability" & I won't discuss notability here. It may not deserve an article but at least redirect to WAMP, pending notability discussion. As I pointed out, people are looking for it --Tachfin (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
G4'd. You are going to have to at least attempt to address the reasoning for deletion given in the AFD rather than just creating a stub based on the previously deleted article.—Kww(talk) 00:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Not even redirect? come on...Deletion discussion largely focused on the fact that there wasn't much to compare, one user mentioned lack of reliable sources for related articles (without mentioning which one), which I added since there are tons of mentions of easyphp in books, scholar etc so concern addressed. Anyway, now I realise should have went to contest deletion but at this point this is becoming too time consuming for me.
BTW my stub wasn't based on previous version since I obviously can't see it. Don't know if it had refs or not and this in particular wasn't discussed in the AFD --Tachfin (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It didn't address a single issue that was raised at the AFD, so it was sufficiently identical. Too many people get caught up in this notion that an article needs to be a cut-and-paste of the previous article to make it eligible for G4. If none of the changes address the reason that the article was deleted, the changes are insufficient.—Kww(talk) 20:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Better link to the deletion discussion and inform the potential reader that she is not sufficiently academic to get consideration. Pldx1 (talk) 07:32, 26 August 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.
Would someone be able to take a look at this article? There is some meaningless text at the top of the page. It looks like a template might have been vandalised, but I can't find it. StAnselm (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks ok to me now, I tried to revert to the earlier version and while the edit didn't go through, the garbage seems to have disappeared. —SpacemanSpiff11:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The talk page is empty, and there is only a single message on either of your user talk pages. You guys need to put in a helluva lot more effort at working this out yourselves before coming to AN. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs06:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, rather than have a civil discussion via our talk pages, TonyTheTiger wanted to waste people's time here. Maybe try to discuss an issue and research the long ago set policies and guidelines. Again may I say review, WP:NSONGS, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTAL. The user is attempting to create an article for a song that has yet to be released for sale or radio airplay, the audio was barley made public two-three hours ago and has not charted in any country. Its notability is questioned and assuming a future success at this point is WP:CRYSTAL. STATicmessage me!06:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Is it the right venue? So, the article is promoting some amazingly absurd and fringe theories (the completely unplanned and even unavoidable (in the era before modern medicine) accidental contracting of diseases being "genocide"), I'm being called "a simple troll" for opposing it (with the user refusing to retract this), another user's getting reallyangry at both of us, and it escelates as I speak. --Niemti (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I went to have a read and see what the issue is, I got to the bit where Maunus said 'The Irish are not an indigenous people' and decided to back away slowly. Take it to DR and see how that goes down. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have at least read the rest of the sentence: "The Irish are not an indigenous people, perhaps they were before independence when they were not in charge of a state (and perhaps they still are in Northern Ireland under one particular analysis that sees religion as defining Irishness), but they are not generally defined as such no. Not under international law, and not by Maybury-Lewis and other scholars. The FAQ at Talk:Indigenous peoples specifically mention the Irish as not being an indigenous people under the definition used." The point Maunus was making is that 'indigenous people' has a specific definition in international law (and within anthropology, as the relevant academic field) - and the Irish don't fit the definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Irish are the people who are indigenous to Ireland, but they are not "an indigenous people", and they are never mentioned as such in the literature on indigenous peoples. I have reviewed three different articles on the topic of "Genocide against Indigenous peoples" today, they all use the standard international definition and none of the mention the Poles, the Irish, or the Carthaginians. But yes, this is a content dispute. My actual comment to Niemti fell after having requested sources that define Poles as an indigenous people about twenty times and I stated that unless he was going to include sources in his next comment in support of his opinion I would consider him a simple troll. He didn't and I do. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Now I'm just angry at the continued open insults, so I'm going to just prove the obvious with few examples:
"The 13th century also witnessed ethnic conflict between indigenous Poles and foreign Germans, who had proved expansive and did not respect Polish church customs." (Zofia Kaleta, The Surname as a Cultural Value and an Ethnic Heritage)
"Having failed to secure the political loyalty of Poles to the German state, and having failed to assimilate them to German language and culture, Prussian and German policy toward the indigenous Poles became increasingly 'dissimilationist.'" (Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany)
"In Silesia, where the landowners were Germans and the peasantry indigenous Poles, the Prussian government was less liberal and the peasants did not get land with their freedom." (Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin, The Political History of Poland)
"They not only seized the grounds and houses of the indigenous Poles, but they also secured a position that turned them into fairly prosperous residents." (Rosa Lehmann, Symbiosis and Ambivalence: Poles and Jews in a Small Galician Town)
"Polish refugees as well as most of the indigenous Poles in the region refused to recognize the new political reality." (Omer Bartov, Eric D. Weitz, Shatterzone of Empires: Coexistence and Violence in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands)
"Publicists pointed out that as a result of age-long German influence the indigenous Poles, even those who had not succumbed to Germanisation, had qualities which were completely different from those of the Poles in Poland." (Polish Western Affairs - Volumes 31-32)
"The indigenous Polish residents were expelled, and German nationals as well as ethnic Germans had moved in to replace them" (Betty Lauer, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Incredible True Story of a German-Jewish Teenager's Struggle to Survive in Nazi-occupied Poland)
"Their role was to form a security barrier protecting ethnic Germans and absorbing any hostility from the remaining indigenous Poles." (John Hiden, Martyn Housden, Neighbours Or Enemies?: Germans, the Baltic and Beyond)
"Himmler outlined the fate of the indigenous Polish population in a key memorandum entitled 'Some Thoughts on the Treatment of the Alien Populations in the East'." (Koenraad Elst, The Saffron Swastika)
"His aim was to turn the Warthegau into a model Gau (district). He expressed contempt for the indigenous Poles and took care to implement seriously the detailed criteria the Nazis used to determine which of the Poles could be Germanized and which could not." (Laurence Rees, Nazis: A Warning from History)
"To create living space for Volksdeutsche, who were to be resettled on territories of western Poland annexed by Germany, approximately one million indigenous Poles and Polish Jews were deported to the General Government" (Holocaust Memorial Museum, In Pursuit of Justice: Examining the Evidence of the Holocaust)
"When the Recovered Territories returned to Poland in 1945 there were over one million indigenous Poles and a complete ruin of cultural centres." (Bohdan Gruchman, Polish Western Territories)
"Together with the one million indigenous Poles, who had not yielded to the centuries of Germanization (the largest centres were in the Opole region, Upper Silesia and Olsztyn Province, they totalled 65 per cent of the pre-war population of these regions." (Stanisław Arnold, Marian Żychowski, Outline History of Poland: From the Beginning of State to the Present Time)
"Verification conducted by Polish authorities in 1945—48, with the strong support of local civic bodies, established the fact that more than 1.2 million indigenous Poles — had survived on the regained area." (Edmund Męclewski, The Economic Development of Poland's Western and Northern Regions)
"During the time of Governor General Frank's rule, terror and brutality reigned, not only against the Jews but also directed towards the indigenous Polish population." (Aubrey Diem, H is for Holocaust)
"Himmler's death squad were once again free to roam the occupied areas, bringing death and destruction as they drove the indigenous Polish and Jewish populations from their homes and replaced them with racially acceptable Volksdeutsche settlers." (Gordon Williamson, The SS: Hitler's Instrument of Terror)
"Nazi colonialism led to two genocides in Poland and Ukraine respectively: one against the Jews, and another against the indigenous Poles and Ukrainians." (A. Dirk Moses, Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History)
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.
There's no way to tell how those writers are using "indigenous Poles". They could be meaning the Poles that have always lived there, or the more standard use of indigenous. Who are the current European occupiers of Poland and to what extent have they eradicated the original Polish language? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Newsflash (in chronological order): The Prussian Partition is no more, the Germans lost WWII, and the Western Slavic ex-eastern Germany is now a part Poland. Of course I'm not talking about current situation, I'm talking about genocide of indigenous Poles by Germany during WWII, and especially in the parts of Poland that were then directly annexed and colonised by the Greater German Reich of Adolf Hitler (as opposed to just occupied territories). I'm also talking about the long-term plans of Hitler's followers towrads the indigenous population in the most of Eastern Europe, that was supposed to be "ethnically cleansed" (to use the JNA/VRS vocabluary) and Germanised/colonised as well:
"This was far less likely to be the case in eastern Europe where the prime Nazi objective was to create Lebensraum (“living space”) for the expansion of the German race and to crush the indigenous Slavic population." (Tom Buchanan, Europe's Troubled Peace: 1945 to the Present)
"Nazis linked this “new, utopian vision of an Aryan-dominated Europe” to the destruction of indigenous, Slavic peoples, whose survivors would be reduced to undifferentiated workers and slaves" (Peter Fritzsche, Life and death in the Third Reich)
"As part of this objective, the Germans began during the war (initially in Poland and then in Russia) enslaving, displacing, or murdering indigenous Slavs, whom the Germans counted as racial subhumans." (Donald M. McKalem, Hitler's Shadow War: The Holocaust and World War II)
Nope, certainly none of these snippets support the claim that Poles are or were an indigenous people under contemporary anthropological and international definitions. The tomato is indigenous to the Americas, but it is not an indigenous people.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Cool racism, man. Continue to insist that Polish people are not people, and their "subhuman" status is in fact not different than this of vegetables. --Niemti (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm . Niemti, you may have a point that the scope of that article is unclear, but you do yourself no favors by twisting others' words like that. There's no administrative action required here, except maybe a wp:trout for you. Go dispute the content where it belongs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Admin_User:Bbb23 Deletion of Autism / Disability campaigner Damon Matthew Wise page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been suggested to seek review and Administrators noticeboard of deletion by User: Bbb23 of article Damon Matthew Wise and its talk page. In view that considerable work done by me and background team and many other editors, and had passed criteria for Disability biography - the alternate consensus if it did not pass contents of page and talk be te,porarily undeleted and userfied or placed in sandbox - either alternatives are acceptable to allow me, my support team and other editors to finetune the article if any remaining issues not addressed can be identified. Have already posted review and will copy this on Bbb23's talk page. AspieNo1 (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
majority consensus was sufficient work was done to keep, and some felt if not ought to be userfied or sandboxed - I have chosen to seek that myself and other editors want the consensus kept to. It was reviewed for Disability biography content status and passed. Have notified user Bbb23 in Talk of this. AspieNo1 (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I would judge consensus as leaning delete. You note that it was a "majority" consensus, but the number of comments for Keep and Delete don't really matter - it's the strength of the arguments that controls the outcome. Undoubtedly, Bbb23 found more weight with the commenters recommending Delete than with those recommending that the article be kept - and that matches my analysis as well. Now, the closing admin also offered to userfy the article on request - that might give you a chance to work on the article without the 7-day deadline of AFD. Have you made that request yet? UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:43, 27 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I posted this on ANI, but I now realize that since I'm not really reporting a current incident, but rather asking advice on how to deal with a potential future problem, it belongs here more than there. This user has been engaging in somewhat disruptive editing to the articles on various mostly-unpopular Japanese right-wing politicians and/or pre-WW2 military personnel, deliberately tieing all of them to the Shinto religion specifically with either no source, a very flimsy source, or a semi-decent source that he/she was deliberately misquoting.[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]Edit summaries confirmed that the user is trying to promote a certain POV.[71][72] I reverted everything I could find, but not having CU powers I have no way of knowing which IP-looking username this person is using now, and most of these articles are outside my usual editing area so I'm not interested in adding them (or the countless other articles he/she might show up) to my watchlist. (I edit articles related to Shinto and Japanese mythology, but usually not politics.) Any idea how to deal with this kind of issue? I'm assuming we're not allowed routinely go back to SPI and say "I don't know who or where, but I'm pretty sure this guy's still around, so can I get a CU to check whether there are any currently non-blocked accounts floating around?" ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
A fairly new editor, by the contribs list. Doing a lot of work in CSD and AfC. Some of the work looks good, but he needs help and some of his decisions could do to be looked at, IMO. I've got to go out, so could someone have a look, please. Could be a valuable addition to the project, if guided a bit. I've asked him to stop for the moment, until he's done a bit more study of the criteria and procedures. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The selection of "useful links" he chose to display of his user page seems extremely unusual for a new editor. I cannot imagine a new editor knowing that some of these even exist. On the other hand, if he is a returned editor, I would have expected greater competence--unless it's a deliberate cover For example, he's using AfC decline summaries for db-tagging. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Well i am not a returned editor, i am new to wikipedia. Yes i am having issues with DB-Tagging can someone please suggest me on how best to use tags? P.s: Please do review my recent updates and suggest me more. Cheers @AndyTheGrump:, @DGG:, @Peridon: --Khali (Lets Talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears that contrary to the claim above, User:Khalibali previously edited as User:Pakithedjay: see this edit, posted by Khalibali in Pakithedjay's name [74]. Note that the "useful links" that DGG commented on above also appear on Pakithedjay's user page. There is clearly more going on here though, as the Pakithedjay account is new too, only being created on 20th August this year. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: Why you no tag more accounts here and put blame on me? I was petrology since 20th and upon warning stopped doing so. What i believe here you are very judgemental, all of us copy and paste different Tags from different pages and many new users does that frequently as they don't have access to special tools(I myself do this many times), what if he made those edits by picking my tags from somewhere? Can you please justify your claim? If you Cant then please Don't create monopoly here. If you have any personal issues just let me know, or in other case get a life mate and stop being judgemental . --Jay (Lets Talk) 18:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
One thing more is common here, he also copied signature style of @FIDDLE. I gave a quick review and can see this guy copied profile template of someone senior in Wikipedia. Anyhow, i am not sure why administrators here are so judgemental and rather saying thanks for editing they are playing blame game. --Jay (Lets Talk) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding things in common, I note that Pakithedjay was warned a couple of days ago about inappropriate CSD tagging: [75]. If this is just down to coincidence, and to one user copying another user's tags, I have to suggest that both of them should maybe take a little more time learning how Wikipedia works before jumping in like that - nobody should be rejecting articles without first learning what the criteria are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies to all for non-notification - I had to go out rather suddenly. I must admit to a sort of deja vu feeling, but wanted to try to get someone to take over from where I'd got to. Thanks, folks. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey! Well I did some investigation and found out, i nominated Khali's first page for Speedy deletion and may be thats the point we came across each others. P.s: Most of the wikipedian's are anonymous and i am not sure who's Khali he could be any mate of mine? May be you? May be my Class mates? Who knows? I am not sure why you people are making it so critical? We all are here for editing so lets point each others on editing instead of interrogating who is who? I am out of this, if any of you guys have issue you are welcome to take my editor privileges away i wont mind that. P.P.S: Don't make Wikipedia a place for this type of discussion and deep investigations. I am outa here. Thanks, My Apologies if my words hurt someone. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakithedjay (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Note that based on my CU findings I have blocked Pakithedjay for one week and the Khalibali account indefinitely. I would have liked Pakithedjay to be honest and admit the connection, however the crossover in editing behaviour combined with the fact that the two are technically indistinguishable across multiple IPs disproves their explanation entirely.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots21:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
First of all, please note that I don't have any particular opinion on this issue, and am merely a messenger.Victor0209 (zhwiki userpage) has left a message on my Chinese Wikipedia talkpage requesting for assistance. He states that his proficiency in the English language is not too good, and is unable to defend himself from sockpuppet allegations. I am here to pass on a message; it is up to whoever is interested in intervening to make a decision.
This user states that he has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry, that he has been accused of being User:Haodilolo and a few IP users, and that he believes that he is being wrongly accused. According to this user, he has only used one user account on Wikipedia, and that due to the nature of his ISP, he claims that he might have been assigned a rotating IP address that may have coincidentally been that of User:Haodilolo, and states that all of this is beyond his control. Note that due to the nature of ISPs in China, one IP address may have been used by over 5 million different people within the same year. Most IP addresses assigned in China are dynamic IP addresses.
If anyone has any messages or replies that they would like passed on to this user, I can translate it and pass it on to him on the Chinese Wikipedia. --benlisquareT•C•E06:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting one. The edits of the two named accounts that led to the block don't match; they're similar, but have some very obvious differences within them. In addition, they were made well over a month apart. The IP edits also differ from the two named accounts (at least, some of them do) and those are also spread over quite a wide timeframe. I, personally, think that the accounts shouldn't have been blocked, or certainly not Victor0209; the evidence isn't solid enough to have blocked the account indefinitely, particularly as this was the account's first sockpuppetry-based block. Give some WP:ROPE, and let them edit again, but keep an eye on them. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)08:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm even more concerned now that I've found this, which basically confirms that Victor0209's edits, and that of the IPs and the other account, were fairly accurate. It's quite possible that they were acting in good faith all along, with access to Chinese language sources that predate that one. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)08:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Just having a closer look at the IPs, two are from Chongqing, one from Shanghai and one from Changchun, Jilin. There is no possible way that these are all the same person. Plus, on Victor0209's Chinese Wikipedia userpage at zh:User:Victor0209, he self-identifies as a resident of Shenyang in Liaoning Province ("该用户现在或曾经居住于沈阳市"). This mix-up should be cleared up as soon as possible. --benlisquareT•C•E14:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I posted a message on the talk page of the admin who declined Victor's unblock request last night. Hopefully someone will respond soon - it's a travesty to leave Victor hanging like this. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)16:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a tough call. I don't know much about dynamic IPs in China and just how dynamic they are, so I can't render an opinion on that.
If the common denominator is User:TVFAN24, then I see similarities TVFan and some IPs, but not with User:TVFAN24 and Haodilolo and Victor. Some IPs, in common with TVfan, use wikimark up the same way: br with a no / and sometimes a space before using br or small.
It's very possible Victor and User:TVFAN24 are unrelated because: This, his only comment at enwp. He used two different commas and made seemingly genuine English mistakes. User:TVFAN24's English is very good. Victor is over at cnwp asking for help because his English isn't good enough to defend himself here, which is a bit too elaborate a ruse. Since the beginning, TVFAN24's formatting was nearly flawless, all the way back to his first edits. With only two edits for Haodilolo, it's hard to conclude anything. But, with Victor, I see sloppy mistakes like forgetting to put a space after a comma. TVfan never does that, I think.
Haodilolo and Victor are both blocked why? Because they edited the same articles and added stuff like episodes or dates. Well, what else is there to add to those articles (which are broadcast in China)? Content in paragraphs? Not likely for most Chinese users. That's hard English. It's more likely they just would add simple things. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock. I'm inclined to unblock Victor0209 now myself but I think it's best to wait for some more input from Admins. Basalisk did the blocks procedurally in goof faith based on the evidence at SPI, but this request sheds a whole new light on the situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I have unblocked Victor0209 per the discussion above. Looking back on this, I agree that I was acting on evidence too thin to justify the block, despite the similar edits. Sorry to all for the trouble caused. Thanks to Luke and Kudpung for the heads up. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate16:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what he's going on about. I left him a message inviting him to discuss any issues he has on my talk page. The AFC submission of his biography doesn't explain his behavior, nor can I find any actual articles about him, deleted or otherwise. Until he does something new, I think he can be safely ignored. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Because the subject doesn't understand or see a difference between "The article isn't notable" and "I'm not notable." There is nothing lost by doing a courtesy blank, it's still in the history and hasn't been deleted. It doesn't hurt us any and it makes the subject feel better. Most of all, it saves the WMF legal team the trouble (even if they'd win any sort of case, it'd still be a burden on them.) So, that's why we do it.--v/r - TP15:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Meh, you could say it that way or about a dozen other ways. I just say that it took almost no effort, it didn't require admin action, and it makes the guy happy and he goes away.--v/r - TP15:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The case for the link - her BLP (and that of all Page 3 glamour models) is of interest to that portal.
The case against the link - a pornography portal amounts to calling that person a porn star, and is therefore unfair labelling of that person.
I would appreciate some senior heads on this as there seems to be some slightly over-zealous chivalry taking place. "Oh no, you can't possibly call these lovely girls such terrible names." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
You might not have been aware of this but the Administrator Noticeboards aren't the place where content decisions are made. These boards deal mostly with editor behavior and things of that nature. The kind of content dispute you're describing should be handled with a WP:RFC, in my opinion, or one of the other options listed at WP:DR. Zad6813:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Although I will point out, its unlikely to get anywhere with an RFC unless you get very specific. The BLP policy is one of the strongest we have, and even if there should be consensus at an RFC that adding a pornography portal to page 3 glamour models is okay, it will likely be ignored in the face of the BLP policy. To add pornography tags or catagories or project portals to a BLP (without risking them being removed straight away) would need (in order): Reliable sources describing her work as/in 'pornography', consensus on wikipedia that glamour modelling is pornographic (a starting point if you want to go the RFC route), consensus at the article talkpage to add them. Usually 'project' portals are not an issue, but the BLP policy applies absolutely everywhere. So while it may be of interest to the project, that does not overrule BLP concerns. The BLP noticeboard is where issues such as this are discussed, and there are plenty of people watching that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not exactly accurate. What you're saying is that 1 person's interpretation of WP:BLP can overrule a consensus on the interpretation of WP:BLP. It cannot. WP:BLP is as subject to WP:CONSENSUS as much as any other policy. It's interpretations can range from extreme, as in yours, to mild and everywhere in between. Consensus determines it's applicability.--v/r - TP13:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hardly extreme. But in practice one persons BLP interpretation quite often over-rules consensus, there is a reason the BLP is exempt from 3rr - the BLP is not a pick and choose when to apply it. 'Is this info/link/addition poorly sourced and contentious? Yes.' then it stays out. You could get 50 people to agree it should go in at an RFC, but unless it gets better sources, or consensus agrees that the sourcing is reliable it will stay out. Given that the place where editwars over potential BLP info is discussed is the BLP noticeboard, and that almost universally errs on the side of caution, you would need a very strong policy-backed argument for adding something like that, consensus that it doesnt have any BLP concerns. Adding pornography links/portals/categories to a page 3 glamour model is contentious. That the source supporting its addition is the (unresolved) argument that page 3 'might' be softcore porn.... On to a loser with that one. The 'interest to wikiproject pornography' is more problematic, wikiprojects have remit over deciding what is of interest to them - page 3 girls/glamour modelling? No problem. Individual models? Without consensus that page 3/glamour is 'pornography' - any link by association is a BLP issue, even on the talk page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat my same argument, so I'll just point above what I already wrote. The 3RR exemption has nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS. WP:BLP is not a blank check to make any ridiculous claim you want.--v/r - TP15:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a lot of people like to think it is, and when you try to point out the fact that it's not, they assume that they have the high ground and treat you like a policy violator. It's basically like WP:FRINGE: both policies are consistently taken way too far, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Someone who invokes BLP as a trump card to overturn consensus is being disruptive and needs to be sanctioned (up to blocks, if necessary) if they refuse to stop. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 28 August 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.
Here it is. To be honest, I'm still bitter over the way I was treated for presenting reliable sources regarding her gender identity that we now recognise, but I'm also willing to edit constructively. Sceptre(talk)20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I get that. But to be fair.... gosh, kind of a lot has happened since then. Would you have any objection to a 1RR restriction, at least temporarily, on anything relating to Chelsea Manning? Might help ease back into things, if there is consensus to lift the ban - and might also ease the concerns of other editors. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to oppose this simply because of the language used in the request. Stating "the ban, more than anything, looks rather foolish" does not persuade me that the ban should be lifted, regardless of any truth in the statement. After all, it's the kind of tendentious statement you appear to have been TBANNED for. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Support lifting the topic ban. While it is correct that Manning had gender issues, there were no reliable sources to support the changes you made in 2012. So, nobody should feel foolish, rather the BLP issue was handled correctly back in 2012. You did last edit the article on May 5th 2012, the ban discussion was in June, and you promised not edit voluntarily, so I would have been inclined to give you another chance back then. It's also been over a year, so it seems reasonable to lift the ban with the condition specified by UltraExactZZ.I am One of Many (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
While I don't want to rehash arguments, I would like to put the record straight and clarify that: a) I did agree, rather quickly, that there weren't reliable sources on the issue of the name (especially as she has now chosen a much nicer name); and b) I also put forward sources for the existence of gender identity disorder, which are now wholly accepted as reliable (and are from generally reliable sources) and are currently used as such in the article (the Lamo chat logs and the Article 32 hearing in particular). I really would like to nip this "didn't present sources" thing in the bud, because, as a search of any discussion I took part in the talk page or project discussion boards shows, I actually did. Sceptre(talk)00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I said I didn't want to rehash arguments, so I'd prefer you not to either. But as to your point: neither were there weren't any sources put forward that Manning herself expressed a wish to be identified as male . As I pointed out multiple times, the only statements that came out were from Manning's family and supporters, which defence witness Lauren McNamara would later describe as "silence and denial". And, indeed, as you and many other people seem to be arguing, an individual's statement of gender identity is more important than whatever others say. Sceptre(talk)00:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the acknowledged gender identity disorder that is debatable.[76][77][78] Some state Breanna even.[79][80][81] Though very few go as far as Scoops on March 22, 2012, "Manning identifies as a woman. She has not transitioned yet, but stated her preference for the name Breanna."[82] So I disagree about sources, as these were 2011 to 2012, but it was not widely reported or thought of highly. This is why I AGF about the issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support - Given the narrow scope and the way in which Wikipedia works, there seems to be zero chance that the gender identity issue will present any future problem given recent events. While the wording used may not be the best, the issue concerning the topic ban has been ultimately resolved. A voluntary 1 RR would be a show of good-faith, but I do not see is a requirement for lifting a now moot dispute which lead to the topic-ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutral,not good -- Sceptre is continuing to argue the previous decision rather than showing a willingness to move on. NE Ent00:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support - Sceptre is one of our most experienced and knowledgeable transgender editors. I think our community really needs her input in articles relating to Private Manning if these articles are going to remain up to Wikipedia standards during this complex process of rewriting them. The behavior that Sceptre engaged in that other editors found objectionable happened over a year ago. I think the ban should be lifted completely, and Sceptre should be allowed 3 reverts on this topic like any other editor. In fact, I think in an ideal world, Sceptre would be made an administrator so that there is someone actually knowledgeable about transgender issues who can step in when vandals try to deface these articles, referring to people by old names, incorrect pronouns, and so on. Rebecca (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right. But the voluntary (and temporary!) 1RR will help Sceptre ease back into what seems to be a busy area of the project these days. First things first, no need to rush headlong into drama. (He said, posting on AN) UltraExactZZSaid~ Did01:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Had Sceptre been content to merely ask for the topic ban to be lifted on the grounds that sufficient time had passed, and that circumstances had changed, I would have concurred. However, I have to suggest that Sceptre's attempts to justify her original behaviour - which was widely seen as a WP:BLP violation, given that Manning at the time had not only made no public statement regarding any wish to be identified as female, but had made clear to the Bradley Manning support group that at that time s/he wished to be addressed as 'Brad' or 'Bradley', and identified as male - removing the ban would be premature. Violations of WP:BLP policy need to be taken seriously, and attempts by Sceptre to suggest that she was somehow 'right all along' make me wonder whether she actually ever understood what the issue was in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, after lifting the topic ban, then Sceptre can explain what exactly was 'right all along' and no need to "wonder" endlessly. -Wikid7711:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose It is evident in her current statement that Sceptre intends advocacy and already has chosen to view "reading the talk page at the moment it does get hard not to take all the blatant transphobia (from admins, even) personally." and "I desperately want to help with trans issues on Wikipedia (especially the abuse of COMMONNAME that comes up every time someone comes out), that I fear my topic ban would prevent me from doing." <== This is great...someone else to spout off "transphobe" accusations into the thread...yeah, that'll help. :/ — Berean Hunter(talk)02:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
"By all means he can have surgery, wear women's clothes or have himself transformed into a dolphin, but leave wikipedia out of it." I don't know what the encyclopedia gains from keeping one of its most prolific trans editors banned from a talk page whilst allowing a person whose entire knowledge of transsexuality comes from South Park to edit freely. Sceptre(talk)02:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Acknowledging one's personal opinions, feelings, and biases is not the same as advocacy. Your own biases are practically oozing out of the computer screen, Berean Hunter, so it takes a lot of gall for you to accuse someone else of "advocacy." Rebecca Weaver (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll just note that your page says you are here because you are an activist. "I'm an activist who spends her time in real life (and on the internet) working for trans women's freedom, safety, and well-being. This is also why I'm an editor on Wikipedia." (I added the highlight). You also make a blanket statement that most wikipedia editors are transphobic. These blanket accusations are part of the problem with this topic area. I am unsure what you think Berean Hunter's biases are, but it would be good if you would refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I openly acknowledge my biases at all times. I think other editors would be wise to do this as well. . .rather than pretending they have perfect knowledge or maintain a god-like emotional detachment from everything they do on Wikipedia. In Berean Hunter's case, he appears to have a bias against radical trans political discourse, and you appear to have the same bias. It is necessary for trans folks' liberation for us to identify what oppresses us as being transphobic or cissexist. Our observation that we live in a cissexist society, and that this infects every aspect of life (including Wikipedia) is necessary for us if we are going to free ourselves. You apparently have a problem with this analysis and view it as personally attacking you. That is one of your (and Berean Hunter's) biases, and it is a bias that is harmful to trans people. I am not "accusing" anyone of anything here. I am calmly describing what I see as reality. I am unsure why the thought that you may be cissexist is so appalling to you. 95%+ of people in our society are cissexist; it would be understandable and normal if you (or anyone else at Wikipedia) also was. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry no. You don't know me, we've never interacted so I don't know why you presume to know me or what biases I may have. I find your baseless accusations utterly distasteful and the equal of falsely accusing someone of racism. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
12 hours is a slap on the wrist, but that's fine. That being said, given advocacy appears to be Sceptre's intent rather than improvement of the article, I am inclined to oppose lifting the topic ban. Resolute03:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Very weak oppose -- I was thinking of appealing the block for Sceptre, but given the tone of discussion here, I'm not sure that would be a good thing. On the other hand, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing either. (Note: I closed the BLPBAN discussion last year.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk)03:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Sarek, being the now-wp:INVOLVED admin who imposed the ban, on 25 June 2012, I would think your comment should have been filed 'neutral' after 14 months. -Wikid7711:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Per Berean Hunter. Shows no understanding why they were topic banned in the first place so no guarantee behavior would not re-occur. --NeilNtalk to me03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Sceptre has situated knowledge due to her position as a trans* individual. The people above who want to penalize her for that sadden me deeply. I think it would be best to lift her topic ban and place her under mentorship. If her mentor finds that her editing has not changed since her topic ban began, that person can reinstate it. We get the best of both worlds here. She can edit and if she acts disruptively, the topic ban returns, ending the disruption. --Guerillero | My Talk04:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Please clarify exactly who you mean by "people above who want to penalize her for that". As an administrator you should know better than to make ill-worded accusations of bigotry. --NeilNtalk to me04:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
She hasn't called out people in this thread like you have (although her definition of vandalism is problematic) I'd still like to know who you're referring to. --NeilNtalk to me06:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Guerillero, accusing other editors of seeking to sanction a Wikipedia editor based on bigotry is a serious accusation, and attempting to weasel out of it by saying another editor "said it better than I could" (when in fact by my reading no such thing was said; an accusation of bias =/= an accusation of bigotry) is...well, we'll call it disappointing. Please specify exactly who you are referring to when you state that people want to keep Sceptre sanctioned based on her being trans, and what leads you to that conclusion? - The BushrangerOne ping only06:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support ending topic ban. Sceptre jumped the gun and the ban served its purposes at that time. Circumstances have changed, and it is time to move on. Sceptre is advised to be cautious. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
In line with Sarek, a weak oppose. I would be supporting, had Sceptre stopped at Andy, I said I didn't want to rehash arguments, so I'd prefer you not to either. That would have been restrained, a sign of understanding, and respectful, all at once. Cheers, LindsayHello05:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutral As with others, I would have supported if Sceptre had not made it clear they still don't understand why they were topic banned. However I'm not opposing because although Sceptre's lack of understanding is a concern, I'm not convinced it's enough to require the continued imposition of a topic ban cnsidering the circumstances (I'm obviously not convinced it's not warranted either). Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Tendentious editing is still tendentious editing. Sceptre appears set to continue the same battle that she/he was engaged in (and that wasted a lot of community time), IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose for now. Sceptre caused serious disruption last time, and feels very strongly about the issue. To the point she is incapable of working collaboratively on it. Unbanning her at this time would not help in solving the situation. Perhaps in a couple more months when the key questions are resolved. --Errant(chat!)09:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - the comments from this editor regaring the previous ban, and accusations of transphobia, do not fill me with hope that they will edit constructively on this article, and violating the topic ban was an incredibly stupid thing to do. GiantSnowman10:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Strong support with a self accepted 1RR condition which expires after showing good conduct for a period to be discussed (suggest 3 months). WIth regard to the recent violation, one can hardly expect anyone to remain silent in the midst of this enormous display of ignorance and bigotry. FiddleFaddle10:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose because Sceptre doesn't realize (or doesn't want to admit) that her previous actions that led to topic ban are clearly wrong. At that time, there were no reliable sources about Manning as a trans person. Situation is now different, because we have her statement--В и к и T 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. I was going to support this but I'm a little concerned about the combative phrasing being used in this argument, and the accusations of transphobia. Incidentally, I noted that Rebecca's userpage states that the majority of Wikipedia editors are transphobic. I wonder how long that particular invective would have lasted if you replaced "cissexist" with "racist", for example? Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The majority of Wikipedia editors are cissexist. And the majority of Wikipedia editors are also racist. This is no negative comment on Wikipedia in particular. The majority of Wikipedia editors are cissexist, racist, sexist, etc. because the majority of people are cissexist, racist, sexist, etc. This is because we live in a white supremacist, patriarchal, cis-dominated society where such ways of thinking and acting are considered normal. That is not "invective;" it is political analysis. Or is this particular political perspective not allowed among Wikipedia editors? We have openly conservative editors, why can't we have editors who openly express far-left social views on their own user pages? Transphobia is not an "accusation," it is a daily reality for people like Sceptre and I, on Wikipedia not less than anywhere else. Stop trying to police us for calling our oppression what it is. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
We do have (large) numbers of "far-left" editors actually, and I'd probably count myself among them. I just don't let my personal views affect my editing on Wikipedia; the same cannot be said for yourself or Sceptre, I'm afraid. GiantSnowman20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
My political views affect every second of how I live my life. The same applies to you, GiantSnowman, whether you realize it or not. My hypothesis is that you hold a bunch of political views that DO affect your editing at Wikipedia, but that you choose to think of these political views as "apolitical," "objective," "fair-minded," or just "common-sense." But in truth, the very idea that one's political views could not influence a particular field of their behavior is ITSELF a political view. Politics is not just about voting in elections, it is about how one thinks power should be distributed throughout society. And every single thing any given individual does influences how power is distributed throughout society. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow indeed. Of course there are racist, sexist, homophobic, and, yes, transphobic editors here (given society, it cannot be any other way), and of course you are quite welcome to hold the belief that the majority of people are racist, sexist, etc. However, personally, as someone who spends time here keeping an eye on such idiot-magnet articles as Homosexuality, I actually find it somewhat insulting that you believe you can judge whole swathes of society like that. Black Kite (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. What Sceptre is asking here is a license to resume POV soapboxing. Yet more soapboxing is the last thing we need on the Manning article right now. Fut.Perf.☼13:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - and make ban permanent. When an editor says one of its most prolific trans editors there are issues beyond repair. --Malerooster (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I happen to agree it's a poor reason to Oppose an unbanning (a very poor one, in fact). However, she did make that comment - in a 3:43 am reply to Berean above. --Errant(chat!)14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh! So she did. I was thinking of Rebecca's comments, above, along the same lines. Mea Culpa. That said, I agree with your analysis as well. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
What I thinkUser:Malerooster meant in their comment was that this editor appears to feel they are bigger/better than the project, and that that is a troublesome attitude to have on a collaborative encyclopedia... Malerooster, please can you clarify for us? GiantSnowman14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, along the lines of an editor that feels they are bigger or better, but it was more along the lines as one of the most prolific xxxx editors(feel free to replace with muslim, jewish, straight, gay, bi, large in stature, what have you, it creates a battlefield mentality of us vs them, and gives the appearance of promoting a certain POV, even if they aren't. It just didn't come across well imho, even if this editor is well ententioned. I'll back away from the ledge and try to assume good faith and say I hope this wasn't to harsh. --Malerooster (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. Agree with sentiment of Guillero and others above; the person has sensitivity and "situated knowledge" and it is important not to stifle this, and the person asked nicely, and the person was right in the past history and did discuss issues at the relevant Talk pages, and the person has behaved nicely since. The new post at Jimbo's talk page, for which the editor has now been bannedblocked, seems somewhat heroic and somewhat important to allow, in spirit of IAR and free speech. I thot that Jimbo's Talk page is a free speech zone, per Jimbo's wishes, where important statements like that can and should be allowed. So I am not sure if it was a fair Block or not, no matter what the stated terms of previous arbitration has been (i.e. can arbitrators rule that posts of a certain type to Jimbo's Talk page are not allowed, or is that an implied exception always? My personal experience there was that Jimbo stepped up to say posting there was always allowed, upon others making motions to punish me for posting.) As noted by someone at the editor's talk page, maybe risking a block was worth it for that post. I believe this should be regarded as done, dealt with by a 12-hour block, and the person will have soon served their time for that. And, back to the current request, support lifting the topic ban (either completely or with the 1RR modification or with the mentorship modification). --doncram14:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your characterisation is incorrect. She was properly topic banned at the time because she was unable to accept that we simply lacked any usable sources to make the changes she wanted. That some of those changes are now being implemented is not vindication for her behaviour. And indeed, the majority of the content she was pushing (i.e. a name) was (and still is) entirely incorrect. My reading of the situation is that Sceptre feels strongly about this topic and wishes to be unbanned for the purposes of combatting transphobic comments on the talk page (this view based on her recent behaviour and off-site comments), not for improving the article content (as this was her approach last time). She is singularly ill-suited to combatting such problems because of her strong personal affront at such comments, and so unbanning her at this time will, I predict, only add to the extended drama at that talk page - rather than improve the discourse. As I stated above; I'm not adverse to removing the topic ban, but I suggest now is an inappropriate time that would only result in disruption and the re-instatement of the ban (which would then be even harder to revoke!). I propose she comes back to us n a couple of months when the naming dispute has stabilised and there is less chance of her returning to the previous problematic behaviour. --Errant(chat!)14:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, i mentioned this discussion at the Jimbo Talk page discussion. ErrantX, my saying the editor was right, was meant as the editor turned out to be correct in identifying there was a transgender issue, and I accept at face value the assertion that the editor did at the Talk page accept that there were not reliable-enough sources at the time. I'll grant I am not familiar with the details. --doncram15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I take no very strong view on the wisdom of the original topic ban, nor on the wisdom of lifting it now. As a general principle, tendentious and speculative editing can be wrong, even if the editor is proven right in the long run about the underlying facts. But on the other hand, and also as a general principle, we ought to be kind and forgiving and always willing to give people a chance to learn and improve. It is up to the community to sift through the facts and come to an informed judgment call about particular cases. The main reason I'm posting here, then, is to suggest that blocking someone based on a post to my talk page raising the general issue of lifting a topic ban (and engaging in part with the topic itself) strikes me as unwise in the long run. One of the important principles of Wikipedia is that we ought to be open to thoughtful disagreement and dissent, and my talk page has by long tradition been somewhat of a haven for people to come and raise broader philosophical issues. There are limits to this, of course - it wouldn't be wise to allow my talk page to become a useless battleground for editors who have been excluded elsewhere! But the occasional post there, which would not be welcome elsewhere, strikes me as a useful safety valve, and also a good way for me to keep in touch with edge issues in the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. I've the impression that the general editing climate on the relevant pages isn't so good, you have to look at the behavior of all editors in that context. Sceptre has had a time out from that area, I think Sceptre's return will improve the editing climate. Count Iblis (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Why exactly would unbanning someone who was topic banned for a large amount of disruption improve the editing climate? To me it looks like it would just add more fuel to the fire, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Being inside a group where there are tensions can over time cause someone to lose a reasonable sense of perspective, you can get dragged down into a mindset where you feel the need to prove your point in various unproductive ways (you don't see that it is unproductive yourself, of course). If you have left that group, it may well be the remaining editors whose behavior is now less than ideal (e.g. Baseball Buggs has been mentioned on Jimbo's page). So, the person returning will have regained a more resonable perspective and will be able to have a more positive impact on the group. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Making a WP:POINT by deliberately violating a topic ban before it has been lifted is clearly a violation of the "clean hands" principle. Sorry. Come back in six months. Collect (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: it's easy, when you're unlikely to face severe oppression due to your identity (you're male, white, cisgender, straight, Christian, whatever), to be able to be able to ignore or brush away the sort of comments that have been posted on the talk page, but as Rebecca points out, this is the daily reality for people like me. Black Kite brings up the idea of, what if Rebecca accused people of racism rather than cissexism? Well, let's look at it another way: as a predominantly white editor base, would it be appropriate for us to censure a person of color for making good faith observations of racism? I really don't think it would be, and nor do I think it's the province of cisgender people to define what transphobia is. While it's stated in terms more recognisable to activist communities, what she's saying ultimately reflects our own admission of systemic bias.
This was why I made the post on User talk:Jimbo Wales: as a trans editor, I think that the attitudes that are evident on the Chelsea Manning talk page are creating a very unwelcoming and unsafe editing environment for me and other trans editors, and it's something that's a major and urgent problem. Sceptre(talk)22:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment (I've already said that I'm in favor of lifting the restriction). I think that 0RR is a better voluntary restriction to stick to than 1RR. If you can't revert at all, you have to make sure your edits have enough consensus, otherwise it's rather pointless to edit or argue on the talk page at all. So, a voluntary 0RR will convice more people that a return in the topic area will not lead to problems. Count Iblis (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support and apologize while lifting topic ban, which did seem ~unwise~ in retrospect, as a violation of wp:NOTCENSORED when gender identity was a major issue to address. A new wp:1RR restriction is a separate issue to decide elsewhere. Regarding a topic ban to enforce wp:BATTLE, in a controversial talk-page, is simply punishment for "precrime" or "thought crimes" not yet committed. I advise to lift the topic ban, discuss conflicts as adults, and warn of any future problems, rather than pre-punish for precrimes. Addendum: I recommend to make a formal apology to Sceptre for the indef topic ban (could have been 3 months?), decided by a vote of 3 people (no opposes) in a 3-day discussion (dif005), not even discussing the terms of the ban. Perhaps the word "foolish" is appropriate. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:03/11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Secondary comment: reading through this thread, I notice many people are saying that I would engage in POV-pushing. Since when was it a POV pushing to ensure that transgender article subjects are treated in an ethical way in concordance with BLP? It's like saying that an editor who works to combat pseudoscience POV pushing is guilty of pushing a pro-science POV. Answers on a postcard, please... Sceptre(talk)02:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Violating a topic ban while a request for the same topic ban is under consideration seems unwise. As does calling the topic ban itself foolish.--Rockfang (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, violating one's topic ban while a discussion is underway to lift the ban is the definition of showing disrespect to the community and an abundantly good reason for the ban not to be lifted. A topic ban means to stay away from that area, period, altogether, no matter how right you think you are. Sceptre's failure to do that and "I was right all along" attitude confirms the necessity of an enforceable remedy. That aside, Sceptre also seems not to understand (if the postcard answer is desired) that Wikipedia follows, never leads, and the fact that sufficient sourcing exists for a change now doesn't mean it did then. However noble Sceptre's original intentions, they resulted in disruption and a premature attempt to an unsupported change. Now those changes are properly supported and done, but just because they're appropriate now doesn't mean they would have been at the time. However noble Sceptre's current intentions, they were a violation of the ban and unacceptable. Sceptre must adhere fully and absolutely to the ban for some period of time prior to any consideration of lifting it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the past with now; there is no POV to push to state that Manning identifies as a woman called "Chelsea", it's a fact. And there is also no POV to push that BLP dictates that we should treat Manning as such (despite the fetishisation of WP:COMMONNAME that poisons nearly every move discussion on the project). As I said, it's like editing psuedoscience articles: there's no "pro-science POV" to push, because that point of view is already NPOV. Sceptre(talk)08:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Note that since Sceptre has chosen to ignore the topic ban again, with both this posting here and anyother similar one on Jimbo's page [83], immediately after coming back from the last block, despite several warnings against these kinds of actions during this discussion, I have blocked her again. I also find that her posting here is about the clearest expression of the "megalomaniac point of view" I've seen on Wikipedia in a while, and strengthens my conviction that the restriction should not be lifted any time soon. This kind of POV grandstanding is exactly not what we need more of in the Manning discussion right now. Fut.Perf.☼09:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the key point. Someone does need to address problems on that talk page (please!!!!!). But Sceptre is not that person because she will simply clash with those editors again, as she did before, and the problem will get no better. Sceptre is not a good advocate for these issues because she feels so strongly she was never able to calmly discuss problematic statements. So I say again; she is not here for an unban so she can contribute to that article, she is here for an unban so she can combat the talk page comments. --Errant(chat!)09:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Sceptre has requested to lift the topic ban to reduce anti-transgender comments on the talk-page which might be scaring other transgender editors, even if by simply alerting others to the bias, but also discuss the Manning case in other venues (beyond the talk-page). -Wikid7711:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Posting here is explicitly not a violation of the topic ban per ban appeal and given the Founder's statement above, this in an inappropriate block and should be reversed forwith. NE Ent14:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't buy that argument. Posting an appeal to ANI is explicitly not a violation of the topic ban, and Scetpre was not blocked for such. ANI is not a free for all zone, and the comments that FPaS blocked her for exhibited the exact same battleground mentality that resulted in the topic ban in the first place. The very fact that she is already neck deep into the same behaviours argues very strongly that Sceptre would only be a disruptive influence were the topic ban lifted. That she is already showing the same disruptive mentality before the block is even lifted argues for the validity of the block. Resolute15:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Another comment. If the topic ban is not going to be lifted, then perhaps modify it to make it less broadly construed so that comments on e.g. Jimbo's talk page are not a violation of the topic ban as Jimbo himself has pointed out is a problem in this discussion here. Thing is that there is problem on the Manning talk page and many editors including Jimbo only found out because she posted about it on Jimbo's page. Count Iblis (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. When I read the old topic ban discussion, good editors like Wikidemon, Hobit, and Roux spoke convincingly against it. People above admit she could have gotten this single-topic ban revoked at any time; the fact that she didn't reflects that she had no plan of violating it. Her comments on Jimbo's page have nothing to do with Bradley Manning; they are related to her perception of transphobia, which some people can say is a "soapbox" or whatever (I suppose efforts to make Wikipedia inclusive are soapboxing by definition) - she wasn't under any special sanction against soapboxing. If you could have used the topic ban responsibly, without interpreting it to prohibit her from speaking out under Jimbo's "open door policy" or on administrative topics, maybe it wouldn't matter so much, but you don't seem to be able to, so it should be overturned right away. I say this although I am, not trans-phobic, but pretty "trans-skeptical", and got an honest chuckle out of some of the comments on her list. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and since action against AndyTheGrump apparently was the main event from which the Sceptre topic ban forked, I don't think you should count his oppose vote - it can't be impartial. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
So we should just start discarding votes on your whims? Whether her comments at Jimbo's page are soapboxing is actually kinda irrelevant - she's soapboxed very, very clearly here, and violated her topic ban by spouting off things about the case involved, in addition to showing a very poor attitude from the opening statement! And there are several people throwing around the "trans-phobic" comments on both sides without any kind of evidence. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)17:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The topic ban was not imposed because Sceptre was wrong about the subject's gender identity but because he failed to follow BLP policies. Since the very issue for which he is banned has now become news, there is even more concern that he will continue the same behavior. TFD (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The editor seems to be demonstrating the same behavior. I think we can wait a little longer before lifting this ban.--Mark18:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Some might see courage as an important part of editing Wikipedia, but that is strictly a personal issue. What is more important is the way the editor follows our guidelines and procedures. Not sure they are ready for a topic ban lift as yet.--Mark20:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Support lifting ban – Sceptre has been blocked twice for pointing out bigotry and prejudice (claims which are evidence-based) on Jimbo's talk page, and I am grateful for her courage in doing so. The discussions relating to Manning include a distressing number of statements illustrating ignorance (at best) and blatant bigotry, prejudice and transphobia (at worst) and I am disappointed that there have not been more editors calling out unacceptable behaviour. That is not to say that all editors opposing the recent page move fall into these categories, but certainly some do. Advocacy for tolerance and mutual respect amongst editors is both appropriate and a net positive and I believe that Sceptre understands that neutral writing is necessary in article space, so the ban is not necessary for prevention. It is true that the appeal could have been worded more tactically and less provocatively, however I do not see that as a reason to oppose lifting the ban in this case. EdChem (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not fair really. As someone who had to deal with her last time; Sceptre does point out problematic stuff. But also manages to cause endless disruption and throws around a lot of unpleasantness in the process. I am not hopeful this has changed because it is a major pressure point for her. As you say advocacy for mutual respect is what we should aim for; her original topic ban was because she totally failed to do that. --Errant(chat!)17:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Claiming that the original ban was "foolish" sounds like a request to return to POV editing. However, it is not practical to maintain an indefinite topic ban, so I would prefer to see this changed to a fixed-length ban. Unscintillating (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment – Being an AN gadfly is largely useless, but opposers should note that Sceptre is not discussing some errant point regarding political correctness. That talk page really is shocking, and it's hardly the only example of Wikipedians throwing up a storm of acronyms and ridiculousness that look very much like phobia, even if it's well-intentioned. While I make no comment regarding the topic ban, given that I'm willing to believe Sceptre really was too disruptive to be allowed back on the page, I largely agree with EdChem: advocacy for tolerance and respect is not something Wikipedia should be punishing. Archaeo (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Even when on a topic ban about a subject, pointing out a serious problem with RW implications in that subject on Jimbo's talk p. should be protected. Not protecting it is using the letter of the rule in an unfair, unreasonable, and unconstructive manner. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. For a topic ban to be removed, a user needs to understand why it was imposed in the first place – little to no evidence of which I can see in Sceptre's two-line request. That recent events may have "vindicated" the reasoning behind past actions does not excuse the disruption that was caused. I oppose based on the statements of Berean Hunter and others above. SuperMarioMan08:17, 28 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion
CLOSED
There's really nothing here requiring the attention of the larger admin community. Further discussion should talk place on article talk page. NE Ent01:56, 29 August 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 just locked the above article pursuant to WP:BLP. I consider my involvement in the article to be minimal and arguably acting only as an administrator. However, some might see it differently, so I brought this here for review by other admins.
Brief summary. The article has three problematic sections in it. Two of the sections should not be included per WP:BLPCRIME. In one, the subject is accused of attempted murder and sexual offenses (from apparently 2009). There is no assertion that he was convicted of anything since. In another section, he was much more recently accused of sexual assault of a minor. The third section doesn't even mention the subject by name but implies that he or colleagues of his were involved in the deaths of students in 2008.
In my view the BLP violations are egregious, enough to warrant full protection of the article and selecting a policy-compliant version.
For those of you who look at the article, don't be confused by the fact that some editors want to remove all of the negative sections, not just the three I've noted. As one person remarked on the talk page, the article has more attacks on the subject than anything else. Never a good sign.
I've "notified" editors on the article talk page, but I'm not notifying anyone individually because this isn't directed at any particular editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Good protect-and-revert by Bbb23. The removed text is run-of-the-mill "X was alleged/charged with bad thing, and here's the gossip...". It is very unlikely that any explanation of why that is unsuitable at Wikipedia would be persuasive to editors wanting to right great wrongs. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the revert and protection. The sources were all allegations and some crazy at that. The text reverted actually exaggerated the allegations. I am One of Many (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The admin has reverted to his own version of the article and fully protected the article, which conflicts with WP:INVOLVED. The admin has twice removing reliable references to Indian news agencies reports [84][85]. I am also told "Don't unredact that again, or you risk being blocked. If you can't find a way to discuss the BLP issues here without repeating the allegations for which the article was locked, then don't discuss them at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)." How can the discussion continue if the sections should be removed or not? If allegations and their current status is not discussed on the talk? The raison d'etre of Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Removed_sections discussion is should the allegations be included and their coverage in WP:RS. IMO, WP:BLPCRIME has Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN exception where there is coverage in RS, accusations can be included. But since, RS are removed on the talk, I can't prove the RS coverage in Indian media about these scandals and controversies. --RedtigerxyzTalk15:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I opened a topic at WP:AN on this issue a couple of day ago and gave notice at the article talk page. Despite that, everyone seems to want to attack me in other forums. I don't mind the attacks, but it would make sense for them to be in just one place. I'm not going to move this, but it would make sense to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
An IP made an edit request here and posted a draft of what he wanted to see in the article. I totally agree it was unsourced, the prose style was very poor. He could reject the edit request with some details on WP:RS,WP:NPOV etc. But, he completely reverted the edit request.
Redtigerxyz's reliable references were required to establish his points. When I told similar things without sources, I was told, I didn't suggest what could be done and why. And when Redtigerxyz suggested those with references, they were redacted and he was warned when he re-inserted those.
@ Bbb23, which other forums and who are attacking you? You have been mentioned in NPOV forum only (and that was only after when another editor discussed it). And I have told the same thing at your talk page and here in "this" ANI thread too. Frankly, it is a completely unexpected dispute which should solved as soon as possible. I think you are aware that I am more worried with other editors' edits, not you. --Tito☸Dutta15:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Despair Redtigerxyz posted "There have been allegations of sex scandals...[link to gossip]" at Talk:Asaram Bapu (diff), then reposted (diff) the link after Bbb23 had redacted it. And other similarly policy-challenged editors have joined the discussion—clearly they are waiting for the full protection to expire so righting great wrongs can begin in earnest. I'm watching the page, but having failed to communicate at NPOVN I suspect no amount of discussion will work. Community input is needed: Is it ok to post commentary with allegations of sexual misconduct and murder on a BLP? What if the BLP subject really deserves the criticism? Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: 1. What you are calling gossip are sub-judicial cases in India, which good media coverage backed by WP:RS. 2. I am assuming you guys understand Hindi too. One of them was in Hindi which was also removed. If my assumption was wrong, then you guys did not really go through all of them. 3. I reposted WP:BOLDly as WP:RS (cites) were redacted. Very unusual. After I was reverted again, as editor I came to ANI. 4. The non-policy-challenged admins should understand that WP:BLPCRIME has Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN exception, what "policy-challenged" editor interpreted. No admin has still not explained how Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN can be established on talk if RSs are redacted. 4. If you carefully read my first post on the talk, I talk about adding info about his life, charitable activities and scandals. "they are waiting..." is a clear violation of WP:AGF and also WP:PERSONALATTACK. RedtigerxyzTalk18:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That isn't really how it works though. As an editor contributing to the page, per ourBLP policy, you have a duty of care for the individual whose article you are writing. Now, if your only presence there is to add negative, controversial information, then you probably shouldn't as that is inappropriate. What you should do is pull together the sources to write up those things you are suggesting others do for you. As to BLPCRIME; it has been upheld numerous times that we take a very cautious approach to legal cases. Much of the material I see on that page doesn't directly relate to the individual, so needs to be reduced or removed to somewhere more appropriate. The problem these sorts of articles have is that they migrate from being a biography into being a dumping ground for anything about these individuals and their followers. --Errant(chat!)18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That is almost a personal attack (from Johnuniq). I mean, his comment: they are waiting for the full protection to expire so righting great wrongs can begin in earnest. That is a poor example of not assuming good faith. How does he know we are waiting for the full protection to expire? If you see my edits there, I have added nothing (not a single controversy or biographical detail) in the article. My first edit in these days was fixing a named ref (i.e. WikiFormatting), and then 2 reverts and simultaneously I moved to talk pages. The other two editors in the discussion have not made any reverts/edits in the article. I have been editing here for 2 years or so, this is not the first time I am facing a content dispute (there were and are many worse and even unsolvable disputes), browse all my contribution to show a single instance where I waited for full protection to expire. A nice allegation against an editor who has just received "Editor of the week title". Anyway, I am asking for an explanation. --Tito☸Dutta09:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be delighted if my comment is found to be incorrect. Perhaps I jumped to some incorrect conclusions on seeing the comments at Talk:Asaram Bapu#Removed sections, and I have been unable to understand what outcome you favor. Your comments seem to object to Bbb23's removal of what Bbb23 described as a BLP violation (diff of removal)—do you think that text should be restored? In response to Bbb23, what did you mean by "Arrogant reply and admin act" (diff)? Why did you write "Finally, a helpful and well-thought post. BIG thanks." (diff) in response to the post which contained the external links that Bbb23 redacted? Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You are strongly requested to accept the request made at the bottom of the post.
This is a classic example of comment manipulation and/or incomplete observation. There are multiple possibilities like a) you are not reading b) you are reading but not understanding c) you are (both) reading and understanding, but not applying your understanding in your posts. I know, this comment certainly needs an explanation. You have not either not read, or ignored these comments. Please don't disappoint me once again, so read:
My comment was: And, I was not talking about edit warring between Bbb and me. Both of us have been editing here for a long time and know how to deal with such situation. (source: NPOV noticeboard)
You question was If you want to challenge Bbb23's administrative actions, the place to do so is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Asaram Bapu and WP:BLP........ and I clearly told you: I am neither worried nor annoyed with Bbb's reversion (source: NPOV Noticeboard)
You have (somehow, anyhow and I don't know how) concluded that they are waiting for the full protection to expire so righting great wrongs can begin in earnest, but, note right after the protection, I posted at Bbb's talk page Actually your WP:FULL has helped. I was going to request it soon... (source: Bbb23's talk page). One one hand an editor is feeling happy for the full protection and on the other hand you are feeling he is waiting for the full protection to expire?
Why did you write "Finally, a helpful and well-thought post. BIG thanks." — your this question clearly shows you have not understood anything. See there, in my post I told, "the article has too much controversy details" and he posted to add more details which was directly opposite of what I suggested. But, I thanked him because at least his post touched the main subject of discussion and that too in a very well manner with good arguments. I am not worried about Bbb's edits. Though we are debating against each other, his edits are no doubt good faith edits and undoubtedly he is attempting to help here. And I feel, he also knows I am also trying to do the same thing. The problem is his and my good faiths conflicted only ONCE. This is not a major issue and can be solved easily without any noticeboard or third party help (I am mentioning User:Bbb23, so that he can read it and solve misunderstanding, if any, the sooner the better)END. Once again, I am mainly and only interested in the article content. I hope you have noticed but, I posted at WT:INB and NPOV noticeboard much before this dispute and protection (so I did not post about these). Here is what I said at NPOV noticeboard: I was talking about that other editor User:Pee and a bunch of other editors (User:Naveen etc, there might be few socks too). (source: NPOV Noticeboard).
Content, the article— that should be the main topic of discussion. No one, simple no one is concentrating there.
Finally, you have predicted an edit war after the full protection expiration. There will be, yes, there will be edit warrings, reverts etc (as it has been happening for last many months). But, neither me nor the editors who are participating in this discussion will be responsible for it. Wait for the group of "new account" editors and their edits. Want to experience the things which we have been tackling so far? please adopt the Asaram Bapu article and revert unnecessary changes/vandalism for next few months. Then only, you will be able to understand my points, what I have been asking here. --Tito☸Dutta18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Tito, I am replying because of all the trouble you've taken to post the above and because I can see how frustrated you are, but, frankly, I'm at a loss because I don't understand most of what you've said. So, I'll just say what I have to say, which is mostly a repeat of what I've said before. I removed the sections from the article pursuant to policy. I locked the article because of the dispute that had been going on and because I was concerned that the offending sections would be restored. I have not changed my position on either of those two actions. I came here (and notified editors on the talk page I was doing so) because and only because I could see an argument that I was WP:INVOLVED, even though in my view I'm not. Therefore, I wanted others to review my actions. For reasons that are totally mysterious to me, editors challenged me on the article talk page, on my talk page, and at ANI, even though the logical thing to do was to challenge me here. Thus far, three editors (non-admins) have supported my actions here. One admin has commented without supporting or objecting (at least that's my interpretation of Errant's remarks).
The lock will remain in place beyond the August 28 expiration if I don't see any progress toward a resolution of the policy issues. Thus far, I see little if any progress. If I may offer some counsel, I think you (collectively) are going about this the wrong way. You need to address policy first and foremost. Until you do that, you will be unable to even think about what content is includable. The principal policy is BLPCRIME, but there are subsidiary policies having to do with negative information generally, weight, relevance, etc. Let me give you an example of what I perceive as a misunderstanding of policy. As you know, I redacted another editor's material on the talk page because it violated BLP (BLP, as I'm sure you know, applies to all pages at Wikipedia, not just article pages). The response was how can we discuss BLPCRIME if we don't repeat the allegations and cite reliable sources in support of them. That misses the point. If the issue were reliable sources, we wouldn't even need to get to BLPCRIME because you can't include negative material generally in a BLP unless the material is reliably sourced, regarless of whether it has to do with criminal allegations.
To sum up, there needs to be policy discussion that comes to a clear consensus that certain material is includable and why. One method of doing that is to raise the issue at WP:BLPN. Another approach is an RfC. Or both, meaning notify editors at BLPN that the RfC has begun. Ideally, you need enough input from experienced editors to reach a well-supported consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
To be clear; your original removal was 100% correct per the BLP policy :) In fact, that it was correct seems to be so obvious it never occurred to me to mention that in my response :D --Errant(chat!)13:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Tito☸Dutta: Do you think that the text Bbb23 removed should be restored? The problem is that the WP:BLP policy is enforced vigorously to ensure that biographical articles of living people do not become dumping grounds for claims. Text about "attempted murder" and "deaths of students" would only be suitable if reporting the outcome of a legal process regarding the subject of the article. It is not relevant whether there is a source to show that people have made claims because such claims are not suitable for a BLP article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not a big issue. That can be discussed at talk page. And if they want they will keep recent controversies, else they will not. The more important point is NPoV and political/CoI bias/gaming in the article. Bbb23, I am trying to give you to few quick examples.
Please read all 6 points if possible
A quick search in Google Books shows the person has written many books on religion, society etc. But, the article mentions nothing, no mention of anything. Can't we write at least one two lines on his literary works? RS will not be an issue.
there are many news articles where Asaram Bapu's activities, popularity, social works etc have been discussed Example, again we are silent and our article has almost no info.
actually Asaram Bapu's website has a page where they have stored many (if not "all") newspaper articles on Asaram Babu with positive remarks. I personally like the websites which have such a "Media coverage" section, these highly help me/us to find RS quickly. Please see the Media Coverage page The Newspapers there are reliable and notable (I have not checked all articles). But, once again we are silent.
the article mentions almost nothing on "why that person is notable, religious life".
His Satsangs (public lectures) have been covered in many newspaper articles, but, as always, we have mentioned almost nothing.
we (not "I") have created few more articles like Asaram Bapu Ashram (on his hermitage), Parents' Worship Day but have not cared a bit to write these in the Asaram Bapu article in summary style and then link those other articles using {{Main}}.
Wikipedia should not be used as a tool or place to defame, insult, caricature a person OR for political gaming, and if such things happen, those should be strictly handled. There are the points where I have been attempting to draw attention. Now,PLEASE read my very first post in this dispute at the Asaram Bapu talk page where my concern was: in Wikipedia, knowingly or unknowingly, the article is defaming Asaram Bapu and trying to pull him down. I have been concentrating and talking on ONLY this point. Who cares??? Disclaimer: I am NOT a follower of Asaram Bapu. Actually just above it was told, I was attempting to restore "controversies". --Tito☸Dutta01:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Tito, I have to go off-wiki (it's dinner time and I'm hungry), so I can reply only briefly. Are you saying you want the ability to add positive, reliably sourced material to the article? If so, you need only make an edit request on the talk page and follow the instructions. BTW, I'm not accusing you of anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, please see the six points above. Actually I don't have much knowledge on Asaram Bapu (detailed explanation), I'll avoid editing here if a better editor comes forward (and that's why I posted at article talk page, NPoV, India noticeboard etc). --Tito☸Dutta02:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm more puzzled than ever—how are the six points above related to this discussion? Naturally good edits should be made, and anyone working in that direction should be thanked. However, I do not see any acknowledgement that WP:BLPrequires removal of the removed text—that is the substantive issue: was the removed text a BLP violation? Any regular at WP:BLPN will confirm that the answer to the last question is yes, and it is perplexing that someone wanting to improve the article does not start by agreeing on that point. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually only these are my points. Read my first post and the last post here, and compare, I started with it and still talking only on it. Other things (discussion on protection etc) are wastage of time. --Tito☸Dutta02:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This post doesn't really belong here because it's a content comment that is unrelated to the policy issues, but I thought I'd throw it in anyway FWIW. The article has a lead, a section called Personal life and a section called Controversies (with subsections). You would think that the sections other than the Controversies section would give you an idea of who this person is and why he is notable. You would be wrong.
I've read the lead and Personal life, and I have virtually no clue. First, the lead has material in it that isn't even covered in the body. Second, the lead has no sources for it, which might not be necessary if the material were in the body and sourced, but, as I said, it's not. The lead says he preaches One Supreme Conscious (apparently that's supposed to be Consciousness), but nowhere does it define what that means. In the Personal life section it gives some very badly written background about his birth and his parents. Then, it says he went to the ashram "of saint Lilashah." Uh, why is Lilashah a "saint" and what does saint mean in this context? I looked at the Lilashah article, and as far as I could tell, he was well-known for being the guru of Bapu. Seems kind of incestuous if Bapu is well-known because of Lilashah and Lilashah is well-known because of Bapu.
Back to the Bapu article. It says he gives spiritual discourses and that 20,000 students visited his satsang (I had to look that up because I have no idea what it is - what's the difference between an ashram and a satsang?) in 2001. The only remaining thing in the section is some material about a helicopter crash, which he survived - obviously not related to his notability.
So, what am I left with? The guy is a spiritual leader. I guess he has his own ashram (there's a link in the infobox), although the article never actually says that. He gives spiritual lectures, and one time he drew 20K people. Really isn't much, is it?
However, the Controversies section is another story. Although still badly written, it's got far more detail. I feel like I'm reading an attack page. Now I'm not going to get into the content issues except as they pertain to BLP, but it's pretty poor article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Bbb23 a) "Satsang" means "spiritual discourses or special religious events" and "ashram" is a place where they live. If you are interested to learn more, please consider reading these two Wikipedia articles: Ashram and Satsang. b) no, 20,000 is not a huge number. His discourses draw/drew more people c) not one, most probably he has many Ashrams in many Indian states ——— But in Wikipedia article we have almost no details. d) I am delighted that you have found it an "attack page", that's the thing I was attempting to say indirectly. Don't you think, if it is found we have (undeliberately) created an attack page and that too of a BLP which is being indexed as the first search result by Google Yahoo and thus influencing many readers— that should handled immediately and carefully? Asaram Bapu's team and few media have reported there have been planned attempts to defame the leader for political and other benefits. I won't be surprised if I see Asaram Bapu or someone reports/tells somewhere that the Wikipedia article is attacking him and this article gets included in Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. For last one year or so, tens of editors are attempting to "modify" the article by removing all controversies and adding PoV pushing "Oh my Lord", "He is God" type comments. At least twice these editors have confessed that they had conflict of interest. Disclaimer: I am not an Asaram Bapu follower. --Tito☸Dutta12:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Tito, the lock has expired. My primary objective is to ensure that neither the article nor the talk page violates WP:BLP. I just removed BLP violations from the talk page. I will continue to police both pages with that objective in mind and will take whatever actions I believe are appropriate to protect the pages. That said, it would be great if you (and others) would improve the article so it is more balanced and understandable. I don't intend to interject myself in any content disputes that don't involve blatant policy violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago61 comments35 people in discussion
This discussion has reached a consensus to remove the community ban from Wikipedia on TreasuryTag. There is also a strong consensus, including among those who support the unban, that the previous topic restrictions imposed upon TreasuryTag should not be lifted. Therefore, all sanctions imposed on TreasuryTag excepting the full site ban remain in full effect. TreasuryTag is also strongly advised to keep in mind that any return to disruption will be met with very little tolerance, and may be sanctioned harshly, including reinstatement of the indefinite block or a community decision to reinstate the ban. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:16, 28 August 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.
The above-noted editor has requested unblock, which would formally be an unban. As the ban itself is community-based, as have been the past discussions related to their unblock, I am advising the community here so that the unban request may be discussed and consensus reached. A reminder, due to the ban and previously-declined community unblock discussions, individual admins should not be unblocking single-handedly ES&L13:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Before I could support unbanning this long-term disruptive editor, I think we would need to see a plan from him about how he's going to go about editing, and, specifically, how this unblock is going to be different from all his other unblocks, each of which came with assurances of good behavior. How is he going to avoid the interpersonal conflicts which were his primary problem, and control his propensity for escalating minor differences into personal attacks? Toolserver appears to be down right not, so I can't see his history of editing in other projects since being banned here, but I gather from his talk page that there hasn't been a lot of it. That's not an insurmountable problem, but it does eliminate the most obvious avenue for providing evidence of renewed collegiality and collaboration.
Comment for the sake of anyone who doesn't remember. TT was indefinitely blocked a good while ago, and the ban was the result of WP:CBAN — he requested an unblock, which was rejected by community consensus, and the closing admin determined that the community's refusal should be deemed a ban because of WP:CBAN. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure what the major issue is here, given that TT can be instantly re-blocked (and re-banned if required) should he fail to meet any conditions of his unblock. To be fair, for someone to stick around for two years waiting for an opportunity to come back and edit using his account rather than sock-puppet or edit anonymously seems incredibly patient. If there are concerns, perhaps editors can work together to come up with a brief "one-strike" charter and then we can see how it goes? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
important point of order to all considering this request: please note that TT was renamed several times, and each individual name has it's own extensive block log. On the whole we are talking about a user whose logs indicate they have been validly blocked nearly forty times. other names were
And, that being the case, I oppose unblocking without some clear acknowledgement of the errors of the past and a much more specific plan of how he intends to behave if unblocked. "I stayed away that proves I can behave" doesn't cut it from someone who has been blocked dozens of times and made similar promises again and again. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Because it shows just how long this user disrupted the project before being banned. Although TTs block log alone shows nearly twenty valid blocks over a period of three years, with many being lifted after he promised to behave. It's called a pattern, and it is repeating itself right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Question: Regarding his statement "I've not socked....", do we take the lack of any accusations or SPI as proof enough? Or does a checkuser need to confirm that? --64.85.215.140 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I am personally willing to take him at his word on that, partially because it doesn't really matter. I don't consider WP:OFFER to be relevant here, and socking was not involved in the reasons for the community ban. TT's behavior has always been the issue and there is nothing specific in his current request indicating what he would do differently. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock/unban, if the existing topic ban remains in force: "a full topic ban on initiating all CSD's, PROD's, and XfD discussions for any page in Wikipedia." Will take effect when/if TreasuryTag is unblocked. I believe that people can change and improve over time, but I also believe asking TT to ease back into editing gradually by staying away from previously contentious aspects of editing would be wise. 28bytes (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock/unban, if per 28bytes. Ye gods, has it been two years? Anyway, people do grow up, mature, mellow - whatever you like to call it. If it turns out he hasn't, it'll soon show up and can be dealt with. It's better to see what he does than to get him to draw up a list of what he won't do. And to put some restrictions on the most troublesome areas at first. Peridon (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock/unban, if per 28bytes. At my (admittedly brief) look-see over the editing history of these accounts, I see two problem areas: xfDs and edit summaries. The former can be dealt with by the topic ban, which could in the future be reconsidered if TT proves productive; the latter can be dealt with by watching like a hawk, which TT should be advised will happen as part of the unblock. As noted above, the block log of this editor, under their various accounts, is not pretty, but there has been ~2 years with no socking, and I believe there's little danger to offering an olive branch with a...er...41st chance; if it works out, then we regain a producitve editor, if it doesn't, a reblock is ~four clicks away. (As a note, I find it curious that User:Porcupine is currently not blocked?) - The BushrangerOne ping only17:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm intrigued that Porcupine doesn't seem to have edited, but got blocked for incivility, and Rambutan is credited with only one edit. (I might be missing something there...) Peridon (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Something is screwy there, considering each of those accounts was blocked multiple times over an extended period of time. I'm guessing it has something to do with the renames, maybe a crat could clarify... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unban - I did not support the original ban although I'll acknowledge TT's conduct was becoming impossible to support. It is also true that some of the conduct was of provocation. People do change; per 28bytes and Peridon. I also hope any old acquaintances of TT's, having also grown, will reserve themselves from provocation. :)John Cline (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock/unban. Danger of further disruption is minimal because it is so easy to reblock, and TT has been away without trouble for long enough. I also note there's been a bit of shifting the goalposts in previous unblock discussions,which TT has taken with considerable patience. ReykYO!21:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I have asked TT for input what restrictions he still sees as valid if this discussion ends without explicitly stating restrictions. But I strongly suggest that there should be a definete statement here one way or another to avoid the recent ScienceApologist situation. Agathoclea (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not seeing any explanation at User talk:TreasuryTag of how he or she will avoid the problems which led to this ban or what they want to work on if the ban was lifted. That's not satisfactory for someone with such a long history of disruptive behaviour given that there appears to a significant likelihood of them causing further disruption. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Support They said they're going to contribute constructively. They will, or they will not. Forcing the editors to spout magic words to get unblocked isn't meaningful, is condescending, and ultimately means nothing; what matters is the content of their character, unknowable except through observation of their post-block edits, not the quality of their wordsmithing an unblock request. NE Ent09:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see anything that even tries to address the concerns that led to the block being imposed. Mere passage of time is not sufficient to unblock a banned editor, especially one who has been through several chances already. It is true that the block could be reimposed if disruptive editing resumed, but in practice things are not so simple and a reblock would involve, at minimum, a drama-filled thread on some noticeboard. Hut 8.510:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
In the circumstances that a reblock is deserved, it's likely that consensus would be reached quickly. A drama-filled thread would be more of a risk from an editor proposing a reblock unnecessarily. Peter James (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
In agreement with Beyond My Ken I would like to see a statement from TT about what his editing intentions are. If this looks OK I would offer support. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Support per TRM and 28bytes, with some reservations. I recall an earlier request, which I thought was too early, but that's no longer the case. I'd be happier with a clear plan, but willing to support. I trust TT understands that with such a block log, the community won't be inclined to much AGF, so ought to stay away form borderline situations which might not get a block for others. When in doubt, ask.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - per Beeblebrox. Blocked 40 time?! Enough is enough, this user clearly cannot be trusted to edit constructively. GiantSnowman15:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - for those who are commenting on the number of blocks, I suggest you read a little more carefully, and at all 3 related accounts. Some of the blocks, for example, are just to notify about the account changes; some were removed as being inappropriate blocks, or being valid blocks on potentially genuine mistakes. Others were extensions to blocks, changes to the conditions, or shortened blocks. This is not condoning the editor's valid, independent blocks, of which there are still a large amount of - but I just wanted to inform you that it's not a blanket figure. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)20:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That is why I qualified my remarks with words like valid blocks and "about" forty times. If we counted invalid blocks and blocks made solely for the purpose of log entries I think it is closer to fifty. Somebody did all the math at one of the previous conversations about this but there are so many threads about TT in the archives that searching for specific discussions without knowing the exact date is ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Support unban, keeping topic ban I was never happy with the way an ANI discussion about a simple unblock request somehow morphed into a community ban, and am tempted to simply support an outright unblock because of that (In fact, I may have done so in a previous unban discussion). However, 28bytes' approach is probably more nuanced, and more likely to lead to a positive outcome, so I'll support that instead. Plus it's a good compromise between the two extremes of "unblock now" and "never unblock", and compromise is a neglected aspect of reaching consensus. The topic ban could be revisited after, what, a few months of unproblematic editing. TT had some problems, but he was also a very productive editor, let's give it another try now that we're all theoretically older and wiser. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Support a probationary unblock, meaning that the topic ban is still in place for now and that he's "on a short leash" otherwise. An altercation with me was one of his last acts before being blocked, so I don't remember him fondly, but I think it's time to give him a chance to demonstrate that he truly has matured over the last 20+ months. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Just for the sake of formality, since it seems as if the trend is towards unbanning TT. I've been monitoring his talk page, and I've seen absolutely nothing there to reassure me that his 40th unblock will bring about anything different than the 39 before it did. I'd also like to contradict those posts above which claim that TT's problem is confined to specific subject areas, and that a topic ban would be useful - that's really not the case. TT's problem is much more general than that: he's just got a bad attitude when he gets into disputes with other editors, which is often; he's uncollegial, he displays battleground behavior, and deploys near-personal attacks regularly. That's why he was community banned, and those are the things I was looking for some sign from TT that he had developed some self-awareness and self-control about. Nothing like that has happened, so I really have no choice but to strongly oppose the unbanning. Yes, of course, he can be re-blocked at any time, but I can almost guarantee that when those disruptive incidents arise, as they are likely to, people will be complaining that TT is being treated unfairly -- it's never as easy to get a reblock as is claimed in these unbanning discussions, especially when the editor has been around as long as TT and has as high a profile as he does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
General response to comments such as this—deeply unreasonable, though to be fair probably also unthinking. I had a bad attitude, I was uncollegial, I did battleground behavior and I did deploy near-personal attacks. But I resent the present tense, because, though it pains me to repeat this point endlessly, people can change over the course of two years. Everyone sees this change in themselves, I imagine. How come it's completely beyond the realm of possibility that I've changed too? The thrust of most of the 'oppose' votes in this discussion seems to be that I should never ever ever be allowed back onto Wikipedia because it's completely impossible for me ever to be a constructive editor. And I was expecting that from some quarters, and I could live with that, but what incentive does that create for banned editors to go away and contemplate and mature and reform? By that logic I may as well [and this isn't a threat because I have no intention of doing this] just create a sock and start editing straight away. Sorry if this appears to be a bit of a rant. But I want people to think sensibly about their reasoning here. If the logic behind your !vote is that my personality is exactly the same as it was in October 2011, please think again, because that clearly isn't plausible. I've changed, I've become a more civilsed person, and I'd like the chance to edit here again and once more make a contribution. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If TT expects to find reason and logic here on Wikipedia, they are probably not ready to return. Wikipedia is not reason, not logic, not stupidity, not democracy, not anarchy, not a dictatorship. It's -- Wikipedia. That stuff about "not punitive"? It's neither entirely true nor entirely untrue. If TT is going to proceed they will have to go way beyond the forbearance of a regular editor -- any perceived misstep will result in the pitchfork crowd crowing they were correct and demanding a pound of flesh. The question is thus: is TT ready to both contribute positively andother duck a heapload aggravation for an interval? NE Ent23:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
TT's "general response" above is a perfectly example of the problem with this editor. He admits that his editing was uncollegial, that he edited with a battleground attitude, and employed near-personal attacks, all the elements of my description of his editing -- and yet, despite confirming everything I said, somehow my comment was "unreasonable" and ("to be fair", TT says, couching an insult as if it was amelioration) "unthinking". I suppose that TT feels that I should assume that he has grown and changed, but what I asked for was some kind of statement for him about how he had grown and changed, and how his editing behavior would be different, to which he never responded. Still, according to TT, the problem is really mine, and not his. That's in line with his behavior pattern throughout the years, the problems was always that the other guy was wrong, never that TT was out of line. I can't see anything in TT's response to make me believe that he's changed one whit since he was banned.
As for TT's straw-man argument about banned editors never being allowed back, it's hogwash. I asked for assurances and that he had changed, and he gave nothing. He didn't even try to convince anyone that he's different, he simply asserts it (in an aggressive and attacking manner, no less). What a banned editor has to do is not to grovel (another straw man), but to own up to their errors, and show with as mcuh honesty and frankness as they can muster that they've changed, to convince the community to take another chance. I believe in second chances, but not in 41st chances, unless I can be convinced that the project will benefit from it. That has not happened in this instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I do not see how TT could have learned anything new that he obviously failed to learn after the first almost 100 blocks over the years since 2007 on several user names. For me personally I find it strange that one user can get 30-40 chances while others are blocked indef after 2 chances. I say, if you have not learned how to behave on Wiki after even the first 10 blocks how can we trust that you have learned now. I also noticed that TT used several user named which has long lists of blocks also apparently. I Oppose a unban on this grounds firmly. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Indef does not equal infinite. Any indef may be appealed - and TT is currently indeffed. Law courts in many countries can forbid appeals. We don't. Think of this as a parole request if you like - I know and he knows that many people will be watching him like shite hawks. Some hoping to catch him, others to try to patch things over. WP:AGF People DO change. And how do we find out if he has? Only one way since the 'edit somewhere else while banned here' form of transportation to Van Diemen's Land ended. Peridon (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but I have a hard time AGF when people have obviously AGF 30-40 times before and TT has broken that trust everytime.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what I don't get about the argument to unban. Has it ever proven to be good for Wikipedia to unblock someone who has more than thirty valid blocks in their log? I seriously doubt it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
AGF was never intended to go on forever in the face of obvious evidence of continuing problems. It's not a blindfold. TO my way of thinking, TT ran out of AGF a long time ago, the ball is now in his corner to show that we should give him a chance. He clearly feels that it should be there for the taking. It isn't, or, rather, it shouldn't be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - That said don't believe it will make a difference as seen by so many blocks for evasion the editor will editing anyways. We are looking for people with basic conduct skills. -- Moxy (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Moxy, do you have any evidence for that or have you just made it up? Unlike certain editors, TreasuryTag has no history of sockpuppeting of which I'm aware. – iridescent22:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry it looks like the 3 names he/she has used are not all blocked. My mistake....still as per block log not someone we need here. -- Moxy (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Support if TT starts behaving like the previous TT again, a block is a matter of one click, and I don't think it'll be controversial. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at his above statement. "The thrust of most of the 'oppose' votes in this discussion seems to be that I should never ever ever be allowed back onto Wikipedia because it's completely impossible for me ever to be a constructive editor." Do you see that in the oppose votes? I don't. In all the oppose votes I see a reasonable expectation that TT will acknowledge his past behaviour problem and indicate how his behaviour will change.
Rather than "Oh, haven't I made that clear?" and an explanation, he turns his requested acknowledgement of past problems into an attack on those who asked for it: he describes comments such as BMK's, which simply echo's all opposers' concerns, as "deeply unreasonable, though to be fair probably also unthinking." Can't you see what is coming at us here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
To be fair though, many of the oppose votes are along the lines of "OMG, he has X number of entries in his block log, no way Jose". Since that that number cannot ever decrease, these votes do amount to "not ever". ReykYO!01:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
...ahhhhhhh, thanks, for some reason my brain read "including" rather than "excepting", I have no idea where that came from but I think some additional product of the glorious bean might help me figure it out. - The BushrangerOne ping only17:29, 28 August 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.
It looks like a rangeblock would be /15 if the 115 is included, /16 if it isn't - that's getting into serious collateral-damage-potential territory. Are there any constructive edits coming from this range? (I can't figure out how to get a range contributions). - The BushrangerOne ping only21:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Nothing useful from either 31.114.0.0/16 or 31.115.0.0/16 for the last year - rangeblocks would have little collateral if applied. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Black Kite for taking a look at that. (How do you do a range-contribs search anyway, if you don't mind my asking, for the next time?) Anyway, given the lack of anything productive long-term from either range, I've rangeblocked 31.114.0.0/16 and 31.115.0.0/16 each for a month - as this is the first time I've dared a rangeblock I won't at all mind checkups to make sure I didn't screw something up. - The BushrangerOne ping only01:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Go to Preferences > Gadgets and tick the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms" option at the bottom of the page. You can then look at ranges on the Special:Contributions page in the same way as you would a user's contribs. Note that: as it says, you can only search for /16, /24 and /27 and smaller ranges, and that doing a search on a busy /16 might take a while. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I've poked in that page the odd time, and it might be helpful if someone with a lot of patience were to help mediate the overall dispute. There definitely are factions pushing for control of various aspects of the article, which certainly is unfair to Dr. Blofeld's efforts to bring it to GA status. Resolute23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
[86][87][88][89][90] . All non editors, most with new accounts all turn up within a few hours to try to sway an argument. Isn't that sort of organized canvassing of non editors to try to sway an argument on wikipedia considered disruptive and blockable anyway? Not that those "votes" have an ounce of credibility anyway, but it is very concerning that Der Statistiker has no respect for other editors and seems intent on pushing his opinions whatever the cost. And yes, I've heard little but whining and sniping about my edits to the article which passed it as a GA. At one point they were proposing to revert back to the April version, which if you compare it to now it sums up what I've had to deal with.. I think if Der Statistiker continues to cause disruption and making derogatory remarks then a topic ban from Paris related articles might be the best thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld07:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
A long and heated discussion over which picture to use to represent Paris has taken place. Some want to show famous Parisian sights, others want to show skyscrapers outside the city. Both arguments have merits. Unfortunately the discussion has turned ugly. Minato ku suggested that those who don't share his opinion want to show a city where "everybody is white" [91]. Completely beside the point, and a thinly disguised attempt at calling other users racists. Then, when the consensus seemed to go against his preferences for skyscrapers, the same user decided to go on a WP:MEAT-campaign. At the website skyscrapercity.com (hardly a neutral place), the user repeatedly encouraged members to go to English Wikipedia to comment and vote in favor of Minato Ku's preferred picture [92], [93], [94]. He even went on to instruct them how they should modify their profiles to appear more credible [95], [96].
His meatpuppetry did have the desired effects, a number of new users turned up, their only edits consisted of being in favor of Minato Ku's desired photo change [97], [98], [99], [100].Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not permitted. Most Wikimedia channels, including #wikipedia-en and -admins do not allow public release of logs. See Meta for channel guidelines. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a rule for the channel, it's not a rule on wikipedia. I see no policy based reason why the logs could not be shown here. Channels can have their rules, doesn't mean we have to follow the arbitrary rules here, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Send the log to me, or a Wikipediocracy staff member, it'll get posted there where there's no qualms with silly no-logging rules. The only thing the IRC ops can do is boot the logger out of the channel, if the identity can be discovered. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you asking me? Sorry I'm much too obedient to do something like that. If you all love IRC so much why don't you actually join the chat instead of keeping on asking for logs? Maybe if you joined you'd realize it's not the hotbed of controversy you imagine and you'd get bored and lose interest. —Soap—04:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just would like to drop a notice here, that the WP:RFPP is currently highly backlogged. This is resulting in continued significant vandalism to various articles, and other reports becoming stale. If any Administrator that is not too busy would stop over there, and put in work fulfilling/denying the plethora of requests there, I would appreciate it. Thank you! STATicmessage me!05:51, 29 August 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.
Hello,
Could I have some help moving Template:Paris Metropolitan Area to its correct namespace, Template: Paris urban area? There is already a redirect there.
This template was created to reflect a 'North American' vision on the French city, but the term 'Metropolitan area' as a translation of aire urbain is pure WP:OR. The official translation provided by the quite official statistics institution that created the aire urbain statistical area is 'urban area'. Thanks. THEPROMENADER08:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You can use {{db-move}} inside <noinclude> tags, but I would be hesitant to make a move like that before checking with the appropriate wikiprojects. It may be that "Metropolitan Area" is a standard name for all of these types of templates. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs08:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Redirects are not necessarily transparent to all processes, like bots. It may have a specific name format for maintenance reasons. Since the template name is seen nowhere but in wikicode, and isn't actually article content, there actually aren't any issues of OR in the template name. Something like Wikiproject Cities or Wikiproject France may maintain this template with a bunch of others that are similarly named; so post a message on their talk page and ask if there's a reason why it has that name, and if there's any reason why it shouldn't be moved. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs10:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
True that the template name isn't visible to any user. FYI, this template is not maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject_France (inactive since around 2010), there are no other similarily-named templates, this template was not named for any bots or maintenance purposes; this template is only used by select French articles (French towns in the Paris suburbs - it is far from being wiki-wide), this template is not included in any other template, and the template is included in the abovementioned articles through a simple direct link. The French-language Wikipedia uses this template in exactly the same way as English wiki, but fortunately they gave it a correct name before deploying it. I notice that only a few other-language Wikipedias are also using this template, but it would be good to name it correctly before it spreads to others. Thanks again. THEPROMENADER10:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
PS: I've added a 'db-g6' template to the redirect page - it has no links to it (other than two links to here, one of those from six years ago) - and I may try putting a '{{db-move}}' on the template itself as suggested above - I'll post a 'done' message here if the move is completed. Thanks. THEPROMENADER12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to what The Promenader is saying, an aire urbaine is a metropolitan area in English. What's called urban area in English is called urban unit in French. This needs to be discussed on the talk page of the template before any move is done. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the 'move' requests from the templates in question because of one particularily disruptive contributor - any admin inspecting the pages will think them contested now. Due to the same contributor's hurried reverts and 'on-redirect-page' edits, the redirect in question is not only useless, it is no longer functioning. I think we're going to need arbitration here - the same is involved in two other threads here. THEPROMENADER13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
'Any admin inspecting the pages will think them contested now..' Since the two of you disagree, that would be an obvious conclusion. If you want this template moved to a new title, put {{subst:Requested move|New title|Reason}} on the template talk page and wait seven days to see what the consensus is. There is no need for language such as 'disruptive contributor'. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Its the same as far as the "Lawsuit" section, which has been greatly expanded and the "Ohio accusations" section added. He still doesn't look notable to me, and the new section looks a bit suspect as regards BLP. I'm just going out now, but I'll look at it more closely later (though if anyone wants to edit it and/or send it to AfD in the meantime, feel free). Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because the article has citations from The Boston Globe, Associated Press, The Providence Journal, NBC and CBS affiliates, and other national sources.Sarot23 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 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.
Yes, I hadn't seen this section yet. The BLP issues need to be further discussed before (and if) this can return to the main page. Not only shouldn't we have negative BLP DYKs, but we shouldn't accuse criminals of even worse things than what they are convicted for anyway. Fram (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
When we have a history of problems with a website, such a warning is appropriate. We need to prevent good-faith editors from using it, and such a big warning is impossible to overlook. Moreover, because the warning specifically says that adding the website will be considered vandalism, it ensures that people won't add the website unless they want to vandalise or unless they don't care — either way, someone adding the website has both the mens rea and the actus reus, so sanctions are justified. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It's standard in the sense that it's the same edit notice that I put in all articles that are plagued by additions of that bogus chart (it's this notice for those that want to look at it). I don't see why you think it's particularly bitey. The warning about vandalism is addressed only for those that proceed to insert the false position after being warned. The chart is a major source of confusion because of its similarity in naming to a reliable chart. I've even added the Portuguese translation so that the people that are most likely to be adding it out of innocent confusion are warned.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Note that due to one of the many bugs (or at least missing features) in VisualEditor, such edit notices are not shown to users using VE! Fram (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, strange. At first it didn't appear, now it does. I'll have to check this further... Please disregard my above post for the time being. Fram (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Except for the mindless litany of every scraped knee he's gotten since he was twelve, no, not really. I thought there was a general consensus that high school sports didn't qualify people for articles.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit conflict] You left out a ton, but inadvertently. The first two editions are identical (the second time, it was created with the db-bio template copied from the first time!), but the third is radically different, 38KB and equipped with eighty-two references. Making a request at WP:REFUND or in this thread is probably your best route. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I assume something was messed up about each of the priors if they were CSDed. My question is was there anything meritorious? I love taking credit for great work and will do great work on this subject, but I want to make sure I am not ignoring any prior editors that should be credited for any encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the previous versions of the page to the article history, so you can look through them to see if there's anything useful. I didn't restore the version that contained the copy of the article on Jahlil Okafor. Restoring the old versions does not mean I take a position on whether this passes the GNG. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The current history is nonsensical. shouldn't the deletion blanking edits appear. It seems odd for an edit to show (2,749 bytes) (+2,749) when the prior edit shows that the page had a larger amount of content than 2749. That deleted page is probably a copyvio as written if I had to take a guess. Some of the flavor of that content will make it into the current article. However, since the deleted page had no WP:ICs, it is difficult to incorporate anything now until I can track down the proper sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I assume "The current history is nonsensical" is just your way of saying "Thank you, Floquenbeam". So, you're welcome. And there's no such thing as a "deletion blanking edit". It doesn't look like a copyvio to me, but if you discover it is, let someone know and the old versions can be re-deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I do appreciate your effort. Yes "Thank you, Floquenbeam". but shouldn't the diffs match up so that a (2,749 bytes) (+2,749) diff follows a point in the edit history where the page was blank. What I mean is could you restore the following two diffs to the edit history:
20:51, 29 January 2012 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Tyus Jones (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
20:50, 29 January 2012 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Tyus Jones (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
What I'm saying is, those aren't diffs, they're log entries. They don't show up in the page history, they show up in the deletion log. I can't re-add them because they aren't deleted versions of the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K., but if I am not mistaken prior admins have been able to restore histories that preserved the clarity of each creation and recreation. It currently seems muddled. I have seen many page histories with edits taking the page size down to 0 before a recreation. Am I asking you for something mysterious. If so, is it possible to redelete the problematic history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Right now, nothing is deleted except Version 3, the copy of Jahlil Okafor. Nothing more can be undeleted as far as the early creations go. Our only options are to leave things as they are or to re-delete the history, but I'd advise against that because it's not problematic. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Deleting is bad, but the history now is not making sense without anything between the deleted version and the recreated version. I have never had this problem before in a recreated page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In that case, please provide a link to a recreated page that's not had this problem. Without seeing one, I can't understand how better to help you, especially since I can't previously remember someone finding fault with this kind of disjointed page history. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger and Nyttend: The byte count differences in the history were a bit weird because MediaWiki calculates the differences in bytes incorrectly after revisions have been undeleted or imported – this problem is covered under bug 36976. Re-deleting then undeleting the page resets the byte count differences, which I did in this case – I moved it to a /Temp page to make sure I cleanly restored the page. The reason why I don't advocate this method more widely (besides the fact that the byte count differences are pretty trivial IMO) is that it also resets an article's page ID, which is used to order the "what links here list"; this doesn't really matter in this case. The delete/undelete method will also not completely solve the byte difference problem in all cases, especially where very old revisions or page imports are involved. Graham8707:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just as a note, you might think that anything with 82 references should pass GNG, but there's always the possibility of WP:BOMBARDMENT having taken place (as it did at NASRAC, which had 23 footnotes at the time of deletion...every one of which went to the club's own website, usually as a link to the root domain). Caveat emptor! - The BushrangerOne ping only23:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So...I totally missed the fact that Version 3 was about a different guy. I noticed that someone A10-tagged it, but I didn't see why. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Graham87 has attempted to sort things out to resolve the byte counts. It is good that the byte count changes are correct. However, that action makes one issue cleaner and totally messes up another. Now the T:AH indicates three CSDs but the page history indicates no CSDs. What was needed was some type of edit between the CSD deletions and the recreations that match the T:AH. Typically the edit summary would be very similar to the one that Graham87 used (moved page Tyus Jones/Temp to Tyus Jones over a redirect without leaving a redirect: revert). Is there a way to insert the zeroing page move edits between the CSDs and the recreations so that the page history is not so discrepant from the T:AH.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but all I have to say is ... whaaaaat? I have not modified the actual page history (besides my page moves). Graham8707:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean that the byte counts of the newly created versions should indicate that they're newly created (as they did before)? I can't do anything about that ... well, I can, but I won't, because it would mess things up even more. Graham8707:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No what I am saying is very simple. Look at the talk page. It indicates 3 CSDs. Now, look at the article page history. It indicates that there were no CSDs. Why? because between the versions that were deleted and the the versions that were recreated there are no edits. In this case, the only really problematic one is between my first edit and the prior edit that got deleted. Can you move this into whatever temp space you work in and put some sort of marker edit between these two edits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As I look back at my creations of CSDed things, I am now seeing that it is fairly unusual to have the prior history restored at all. Since a lot of the prior version was a copyvio of this page why don't we just delete all the prior history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: unusual to have prior history restored: indeed, and not required either (as you don't build on what was already deleted) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Tony, perhaps you could ask for admin status at one of these wikis? That would give you a chance to try out history merges etc., and should make it easier to understand what goes on when admins delete and restore pages on Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪08:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Manning incident: sanctions/actions against parties?
Checkuser note: I can confirm that this user evaded their block by editing while logged out between June and July of this year. Tiptoety talk 03:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. That said, I am sure it is him. Both the technical data and the behavioral evidence back it up. Tiptoety talk 03:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
. Begoon talk 00:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Yes, alphabet lookalike characters are usually blacklisted. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
, Prolific creation of alterntate accounts while blocked 
Note: 
Facepalm . Niemti, you may have a point that the scope of that article is unclear, but you do yourself no favors by twisting others' words like that. There's no administrative action required here, except maybe a wp:trout for you. Go dispute the content where it belongs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
technically indistinguishable across multiple IPs disproves their explanation entirely.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Moved from WP:ANI
Note: Following comment moved from separate section below. — Scott • talk 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
