Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241

Hound/Civil/AGF IBAN request

• Request: I would like to request an IBAN between myself and Cantaloupe2 (see context here) A couple editors have told me that I should post the request here. Corporate 12:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Disclosure You've got a discussion going concurrently at

• Talk:Nouniquenames
• Talk:DGG
• AN Talk

I'm requesting your disclosure in any other locations you're concurrently discussing this matter. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On AN Talk, you claim that you want to be able to edit without being "pounced on". I interpret that as expecting to have full reign in wanting to add whatever you want to advance your paid edits on behalf of clients to show their pages in positive light they wish without having me change it to look any other way. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm involved, so take this with a grain of salt. I've spelled out my reasoning at COIN, but I'd suggest that something may need to be done if Cantaloupe can't learn to interact nicely. --Nouniquenames 05:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Steward needed...

...to follow up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) by deleting with their super powers. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Coffee, tea or delete? ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Never run into that issue before. Seems kind of ridiculous not to let the biggest WP project delete a page on its own site. I hate to ever suggest this, but you may need to ask for help over at Meta, I don't know that many stewards watch this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, after I posted here I saw a link to some board there. Thanks Beeblebrox, and I share your concern. Anyway, try to delete those articles and you'll see what I mean. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I can't see the error message you are getting. Is the reason it not being able to be deleted is because of the article having a large number of revisions? If that is the case, couldn't you delete X amount of revisions at a time until the article doesn't have such a large amount? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the page in question, but if there were 7 thousand revisions, and the limit is 5 thousand. you would ask an admin to selectively delete 2000 revisions? I just was kinda surprised by the suggestion. - jc37 01:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion only removes certain revisions from public view, correct? Since the entire article would be deleted, all of it would be removed from public view. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, a steward should take care of it. The main reason it's restricted for purely for technical reasons IIRC. (It's the "bigdelete" user-right) Legoktm (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz (talk · contribs) took care of another today, try pinging him? The problem is that deleting such a page can crash the servers, so we don't want people doing this willy-nilly. (A la Ed Poor deleting VFD back in the day). --Rschen7754 01:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nod - I think it was implemented due to a situation with deleting the sandbox? - jc37 01:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The village stocks contains the story of how that came to be, see the section on Scientizzle. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) dammit blade, you beat me to it Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done And yes, it did lock the database and require multiple attempts to force it through the server. I suspect if I had tried to do it to ANI or another much larger page during a peak editing time, it would have been much uglier. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't think it's be that hard on the database (it was a shade under 6000), so I suppose I stand corrected. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It definately was that hard on the database. About 10-15 minutes ago I lost a few edits because the database locked. So, the effects were definitely felt. --Jayron32 03:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I figured picking 11:30 EDT would not be a peak time, but I could've shoved it back a few more hours. MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but should be be using an alternative to deletion in unusual cases such as this? It doesn't seem worth messing up the ability to edit the entire encyclopedia to get rid of a single, and fairly obscure, article which (as far as I'm aware) doesn't have anything highly problematic in its revision history. Converting the page to a plausible redirect (for instance, to DirecTV) and then locking it so that only admins can edit the redirect would achieve pretty much the same thing without any collateral damage. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Or lock it blanked and let a bot with permissions revdel a few revisions at a time until it's gone. Then an admin deletes the blank page. I don't know that it would work, but it seems like it would accomplish the desired ends without messing things up in the mean time. --Nouniquenames 16:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this premise is based on a incomplete understanding of how revision deletion works. Revisions are not actually gone when revdeleted, it is just that their visibility is adjusted, they are still all there in the page history, you just have to have admin rights to see the bits that have been hidden. So it would still require the big delete permission to zap it Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And, just like that, my idea seems far less useful. Thanks for the clarification, though, --Nouniquenames 03:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Silas S. Brown and his thousands of redirects to Hangul

I have given User:Silas S. Brown a short block for ignoring requests to stop his redirect creation spree and discuss this first. He was creating thousands of redirects to Hangul at a very high speed (over 20 per minute)? It looks as if he was tryiong to create a redirect from every syllable block (the article: "The number of possible blocks is 11,172, though there are far fewer possible syllables in Korean, and not all possible syllables actually occur.") to the actual language. Whether this is wanted and these are good, obvious search terms is dubious (or at least debatable).

Outside review of the block and of the redirect creation is welcome. Fram (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

He's responded now, with an indication that the script has been stopped, so I guess the block has already served its purpose and could be lifted, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page looks like it was a good faith bot experiment. He should be unblocked and encouraged to learn more about bot writing in the appropriate channels, so he can contribute more in this area. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses and the correct unblock now that the script is stopped and the operator responding. Any ideas on what to do with the redirects (or where best to discuss this?). Fram (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Since they're all new, they won't be linked anywhere, so I would check that he's okay with them all being undone and, if so, WP:CSD#G7 the lot. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but would you include the links to e.g. here and here as well? They even include a number of links I can't access because I can't find the source, only the target. No idea if there have been other similar runs. Fram (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'd better write up exactly what I've done: User:Silas S. Brown/Unicode redirects Silas S. Brown (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 20#14,000 Unicode characters to discuss these. Fram (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Page Name

hello Sir, I want to make a Community page named "Youngistan Reunites" which is Trust located at Jaipur. We are doing work on Young peoples on their problems. We have organized several events under this banner. so kindly allow me to make my page with this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngistanreunites (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. --Jayron32 18:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:COI, and WP:UNAME Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you might be referring to Facebook community pages. Such pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia—such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. However, at Wikipedia we have no control over Facebook's community pages. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is backlogged.

Please consider spending your time there, admins.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

?? That's a pretty typical number. No one usually gets excited until it hits 100, which it hasn't in some time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Müdigkeit (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So why did you then decide to change it to 100, then? --MuZemike 05:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that is the usual number when someone should really go and look at it right now, then that should be the backlog point, right? After all, a backlog should show that something should be done right now. If 50 are normal, and nothing to worry about, then a backlog notice with 50 makes no sense.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or someone messed up the CSS interface?

It displays all mangled up on en.wp, especially at the top (title overlapping the links above and the tabs below), but it's fine on other language Wikipedias. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's back to normal now. It lasted about 5 minutes. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New look?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I saw. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes CSS just fails to load, but usually a refresh fixes it. I get screwed up CSS at least once a day, from two different geolocations/computers each day, but then again, I load a lot of pages each day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Albanian range with 3 years of data vandalism and 11000 edits

Hello,

I've copied this message from the village pump as I was pointed out this might be a better place. This really needs somebody who is going to look into this (and that will take a little time).

I'm no regular en-wikipedia user, some days ago I found a range with years and hundreds of vandalistic edits. If I find a few vandalistic edits I can revert them, but the size of this users edits (around 11000) is way to big for me, somebody who's not familiar with the en-wiki workings, to deal with. I've allready 2 times tried on IRC to find somebody who would want to pick this problem up and make sure these edits get checked, and if they are vandalism reverted. So far I haven't been able to find somebody who can help me.

The range is this (79.106.109.221 is one of the around 200 IP's)

The vandalism is on Albanian; soccer; music; mexican drug scene related articles. There is some pretty obvious vandalism (blanking or adding nonsense lines to articles), but also more sneaky vandalism (changing music charts to all nr.1 positions), and maybe even more sneaky vandalism which I haven't been able to spot. But there also seem to be some correct edits. Some of the IP's have been warned or blocked for small times in the past. But the range as a whole hasn't been looked into. This vandalism has been able to go on for over 3 years and thus there is a 6000 edits big problem now. Some of the vandalism still is in the articles.

2 examples: this and this.

I really hope somebody can pick up looking into this, I'm not able to solve the problem because I'm not a regular here (and probably more then one person is needed anyhow). It is allready a shame that a vandal can go on for 3 years like this, but it would be an even bigger shame if this vandal also when spotted (and me asking for help 3 times) could go on vandalising this Wikipedia. Greets, Basvb (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion on "net four votes" rule

By a vote of 11-1-1 (support/oppose/abstentions), the Committee has amended its procedures regarding the opening of proceedings. The text of the new rule is as follows:

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

For the Arbitration Committee --Lord Roem (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Mass killings under Communist regimes

AmateurEditor wants an uninvolved admin to close a discussion, but he left the request at WP:ANI instead of here. Please read his comments (and reply if necessary) at that page, section "Determination of consensus for an edit at Mass killings under Communist regimes". Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Links are Mass killings under Communist regimes and Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, for convenience. Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link directly to the ANI post: Determination of consensus for an edit at Mass killings under Communist regimes. Thanks in advance to whichever admin assists with this. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• This article is under AE sanctions (one should read all details at the top of talk page). I do not think there is any consensus. To complicate the things, there is currently a standing proposal for mediation on the article talk page. I think the proposed change contradicts NPOV policy, plain and simple. There is an estimate taken from an academic RS. Instead of bringing more RS to expand the range of numbers (as required by NPOV), some participants simply want to remove the reliably sourced information they do not like. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the relatively few editors who opposed this proposal should be repeating their positions on these noticeboards (another did the same at the original ANI post), especially without identifying themselves as involved, because it could be misleading to the uninvolved admins who need to evaluate the discussion. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, removal of reliably sourced information (as you proposed in the RfC) goes against W:NPOV. According to the policy, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ... This policy is nonnegotiable". The quoted book qualify as RS because it was written by established academic reserachers and published in Harvard University Press. If there are other views/publications with other numbers, they must be included. However, if there are no other "significant views" published in RS (numerical estimates in this case), this should stay as the only estimate published in RS. I think there are actually other published numbers. Now, speaking about involvement, it was you who posted this RfC, and it was you who came with request for closure to ANI. Unlike you, I never edited this page a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You have made 13 posts to the article's talk page in the past month and you have participated in the very discussion for which I am asking an uninvolved admin to make a consensus determination. This is what I mean when I say you are involved. I am not going to re-respond to your inaccurate characterization of the proposal. Any interested and uninvolved admin who volunteers will be able to read the full discussion at the article talk page. But why are you even trying to re-debate this here? Does it do anything other than discourage uninvolved admins from wading into this issue and making the determination I have asked for, as the sanctions recommend? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Question for anyone: should I try to keep this section on the board until it gets an admin response by editing it every two days, or just let it archive and repost the request? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could post a direct link to whatever discussion you think should be closed - there are several going on. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Formal Edit Proposal". AmateurEditor (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrators are supposed to base their decision on whether or not content policy is being followed on the basis of the opinions of editors. The place to argue content policy is on the talk page. It appears that most editors agree that AmateurEditor's suggestion does not violate content policy. In fact it is unusual to argue that something cannot be moved within an article because it would be a violation of policy. TFD (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the "formal proposal" by AmateurEditor (see link above), two changes should be simultaneously made: (a) to remove the key reliably sourced estimate from the Introduction, and (b) to describe the estimate from the book as "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates". What does it mean "unofficial"? I do not think we have a clear consensus even about (a). As about (b), this is WP:Editorial or possibly WP:OR. There is no consensus about (b) whatsoever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Good lord. why on earth does Wikipedia have this egregious little article? Governments of all sorts have carried out massacres. The intersection of "communism" and "mass killing" here is made solely to score a political point. Hmmm Mass killings under Capitalist regimes; Mass killings under Theocratic regimes; Mass killings under Socialist regimes; Mass killings under Dictatorships; Mass killings under Monarchies. Fascinating. (adding: The second sentence in Wikipedia's own article actually gets this right, and then is blithely ignored. "Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made.")Dan Murphy (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Since we have this and this (which seems reasonable to me), I do not see anything seriously problematic. It probably just should be renamed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What on earth? Category:Political repression and Category:Political repressions by country actually underscore my point. You have a pov-pushing article, largely written by unaccountable and ignorant people, some of them solely interested in scoring political points. And it will not be fixed.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What made me LOL, skimming the article, was Between 80,000 and 100,000 people may have been killed in East Germany beginning in 1945 as part of political repression by the Soviet Union. ORLY? East Germany was created in 1949. But such obvious silliness aside, the quality of the sourcing for the claim is mindboggling: "east+germany" it's listed under "possible cases", with a footnote disclaiming: "available evidence suggests mass killing may have occurred, but documentation is insufficient to make a definitive judgement regarding the number of people killed, the intentionality of the killing, or the motives of the perpetrators". The claim, taken from a table, does not appear to be explained or justified anywhere in the book (judging by Google Books search). Well anyway, the best that can be said for such transparently POV articles is that they draw some of the sting from more important articles, where the same claims would otherwise be more prominent. PS Interesting too that so much of the more contentious material in that article is sourced to a book whose author is apparently not notable enough for a WP entry. Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. "East Germany" is generally used as the term for the preceding Soviet Zone as well as for the DDR. And it is a teensy bit clear that the Soviet Zone was, in fact, a "communist regime" called "East Germany" for the period in question. Second, facts from a table are, indeed, used in many articles - the fact that a table was used does not have any bearing at all as to whether the book backs a claim. Third, there are, strangely enough, a great many authors who do not have Wikipedia articles. That is not even close to a reason to disallow what is in the RS book. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This sort of quality of debate is precisely why I don't bloody go anywhere near this nonsense. I specifically said that the claim in the table is not explained anywhere in the book. The table is referenced in the article because that's all there is. The attempt to defend Valentino's terminological confusion is equally depressing: see East Germany and Soviet occupation zone. Rd232 ^talk 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: Stéphane Courtois has a Wikipedia article - is that whom you asserted has no article? Collect (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No, from context it ought to be obvious that I meant Benjamin A. Valentino. Rd232 ^talk 15:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Big Bird

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.

---

• Big Bird

I just protected it for 3 weeks to take the page til after the US election, due to the continuing of the editing/reverting, which led to it's previous protection which recently expired.

That said, after I did so, it dawned on me that I have commented in a discussion on the talk page concerning the election-related coverage.

Sooo....

Some admin can feel free to revert, set a new protection, or leave it. I don't care. But I thought I'd do a mea culpa: Oops : ) - jc37 02:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I looked it over and your actions looks kosher. Say three Hail Jimbos and go in peace, my son. (Update... while I typed another admin has already removed/restored your protection so as to purify it completely.) Manning (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for no response here, but I'm temporarily on a very bad connection; my protection went through, but it often takes a few minutes to load a page, and I can't count on it loading at all — I couldn't tell you what I'd done. This whole situation is a great example of egregious Wikipedia:Recentism, but so is virtually every other article just slightly related to this election. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Confidence in the arbcom, and confidence in one particular arbitrator

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.

---

Arising from the current request for clarification of the Civility Enforcement case, there are two declarations of lack of confidence on its talkpage: one declaration of lack of confidence in arbcom and one of lack of confidence in one individual arbitrator. The debate on the case page has been very heated and engaged many people, and there consequently seems to be a good deal of interest in weighing in on these declarations, to support them or to protest against them. But for people who don't actively follow the case, it all takes place on a pretty obscure talkpage, so I thought I'd post links in this forum. The arbcom and its members are, after all, subjects of wider general interest than any single case amounts to, however high-profile. I apologise for not turning the two talkpage declarations formally into proper RFC's and posting them in the "Centralized discussion" box above, but I couldn't face it. There are a lot of formalities and preliminaries involved in, especially, a user RFC, which is of course what the individual-arb declaration would amount to. (In reality, though not formally, there have actually been plenty of relevant preliminaries.) Bishonen | talk 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

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

Right place to ask about canvassing?

User:Wikilogin123 has made 100 identical additions to Talk pages canvassing for edits. Does this rise to the level of ANI? I've boldly asked about mass revert at AWB Tasks. --Lexein (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the user was already blocked, and I've mass-rollbacked the vast majority of them. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, blocked, I think, at around the same minute I was asking about it! --Lexein (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

iar rpp request

I know this ain't rpp but could someone semi User talk:Reaper Eternal (it's a no brainer). Nobody Ent 03:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good call NE; it's been done by somebody much faster than me. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

JoSePh3993

DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
JoSePh3993 is not a sock of Java987. These are all of JoSePh3993 socks: JAF1999, JAF2801, JAF3, JAF3993, smileyface, loobasooba, MISSKITT99 I am JoSePh3993. I want the record changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.182.186 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's reverting of 'socks/trolls' using Twinkle

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.

---

Tim98Seven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Regarding this revert, is Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) correct in his apparent belief [1][2] that if someone is blocked as a sock/troll, automatically reverting all their edits, including constructive ones, is justified? Is it also right that he apparently does this without even reviewing the change, leaving it up to the article's regular editors to double-check whether he's just degraded the article or not, as happened in this case. I was under the impression that there is no revert on sight policy except for banned editors, and even then it would never be labelled as a vandalism revert if it wasn't. I put this all to him, but he just brushed it off as a "pissing contest" (?), telling me to come here instead if I felt I'd been "abused" (?) [3]. Tim98Seven (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverting socks & trolls is always justified per WP:DENY. It helps discourage them. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Discourages any new editor caught in the crossfire. Nobody Ent 01:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be valid if this were a new editor. No experienced user should expect to enter a dramafest with a new account and not get jumped on. It doesn't matter how sterling the old account's reputation was; the sheer number of banned users who return again and again with new accounts has permanently sapped most admins' patience, even for legitimate socks. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:DENY seems to talk solely about vandal edits, not constructive ones. Second, WP:DENY is an essay so it cannot really justify anything unless it's shown no-one has written a counter-essay, and more importantly, there's no contradictory policy out there (WP:PRESERVE springs to mind when it comes to not removing constructive contributions). Tim98Seven (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This editor (Tim) has charged in here like a bull in a china shop. He registered his account on October 8 and made one edit to an article. He did nothing until October 23, at which point he jumped into the Malleus arbitration nightmare and posted a statement. He was blocked. His multiple unblock requests were turned down by different admins until User:Reaper Eternal, the blocking admin, finally unblocked him and apologized for connecting him to a particular sock editor. In a style consistent with his previous comments, Tim said that Reaper's apology was insincere, among other things (he's fairly verbose). He has acknowledged that he has had an account before, although I don't know what it is (supposedly there's some evidence somewhere as to what account he had). Now he's complaining about Dennis, one of the few voices of moderation in this whole Arbcom thing. I don't know who Tim is or whether he should be blocked for sockpuppetry, but the evidence of trolling is fairly strong.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• What Bbb said, but at least they made an article edit. Bunogo was odd: I didn't even notice they had posted an almost incomprehensible message on my talk page, but the language strikes me as different from Tim98's, who reads like a professional. A professional dramatist and POV warrior, that is. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is ridiculous. This is the alleged "trolling" statement [4]. (Compared to much of the rest of the page and associated talk page, it's mild). Note the editor clearly indicates they are a returning editor. It was a ridiculous block. Look at the first (blown off) unblock request [5]. Given the provocation this returning user received, they've been a mouse in a church. Nobody Ent 02:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Heh, I love Tim's comment in response to your request on his talk page: "I consider 99% of wikipolitics to be unimportant". Right, and that's why he's injected himself in what is undoubtedly one of largest controversies to hit Wikipedia since god knows when. That's really all he's doing. It's not his statements that are necessarily troll-like - it's his behavior. His comments at the deletion discussion on the wikipedian/not cat, voting to keep and putting himself in the catergory at the same time, not to mention repeating the same mantra about editor disaffection he's been spreading in multiple places. He's disruptive and here only to create drama (see Drmies's usual incisive reading above).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• He also found his way over to the related Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 24 after I had participated, which is certainly political and related. Anyway, I'm off to bed as it is quite late for me, I will leave this in the community's capable hands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I found that page while checking your contribs. I don't see any reason why I cannot participate in it. You can't really say I have no cause to be checking them either, when it's the only way I'll apparently find out about things like this well after the event, in addition to the other stuff like your subsequent article revert (that you've got no time to comment on here it seems, given the lateness of the hour), and of course your part time job as an arbitration clerk too. Tim98Seven (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Let's remember that alternate accounts aren't permitted to edit Arbcom pages:Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. Indefinite block is clearly justified. If he wants to edit, he can return to his original account.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Have you actually read the user's talk page? Nobody Ent 03:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. The block needs to be reinstated. If he wants to edit, he can use his original account. There's no legitimate reason for his alternate account editing project space, and it is an alternate. I don't care what definition he wants to use for alternate: he has two accounts, and any edits to project space need to be viewed in light of his full editing history.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• He has self-claimed to not have access to his old account anymore. Furthermore, he's not under active sanctions, so he should be free to use whichever account he likes to, so long as he's not using other accounts contrary to the policies set forth. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ILLEGIT is quite specific on this point. I don't really care why he is using an alternate account, only that he is using it illegitimately. The purpose of that restriction in WP:ILLEGIT is to allow editors evaluating his positions in project discussions to look over his editing history during their evaluation of his comments. Whether he is able to toggle between the two is irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 03:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but (1) he has identified his previous account, (2) he no longer has access to that previous account, so therefore (3) it should not be looked as an alternative account. We do forget passwords, you know. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• What steps did you use to evaluate the claimed linkage between the two accounts?—Kww(talk) 03:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Face value. As I'm not a CU (and CU was used behind the scenes somewhere), I could not connect him to other accounts. But, if Reaper's unblock reason stands - and Tim is being 100% transparent about it, then I see no good reason to re-block him. I could be convinced otherwise if I see evidence contrary to it, obviously. (and I think people need to be a *tiny bit* less trigger-happy, but that might just be me) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

*Re-block as sock. G Clark had his email enabled 1 but Tim98Seven says he never used it.2

Tim uses behaviour 3, offence 4, analyse 5...none of which are American English. G Clark was in Maryland 6 and claimed to be American 7.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that says Americans (like me) can't utilise British English spellings. If you can find examples of G Clark using AmE spellings, that'd be more convincing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

First, I know very few Americans who use British spelling unless they have a connection to a British-spelling country. Second, I know even fewer who use both spellings at different times. More important, take a look at User:G Clark's edit history. It's mostly gnome-like (disambigs and that sort of thing). He didn't participate in those areas of Wikipedia Tim is participating in. I don't think they're the same people. If Tim is a sock of someone, it's not of G Clark. It's more like Wikipedia identity theft (he found a retired editor and claimed to be him). Either that, or he's a damned good actor.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Like this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bbb, I think you meant to say "firstly". No, you're correct: their writing styles are very, very different (look at their use of caps and punctuation--a clear product of American education). Because they're different people. They went to Template:Retired and found an editor under "What links here". Drmies (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yup, as I said, identity theft. Firstly? I hate that word. Do Brits use it more than Americans? It thought it was just plain (plainly) incorrect to use "firstly", but apparently it has a legitimate history. You probably know all this, anyway, and you're just having fun in your new position as a non-entity. Oh, btw, I agree with Berean - someone should reblock Tim (thank you, Kevin).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I was about to announce the same conclusion but from different evidence. From what few talk-space edits G-clark made that weren't adding welcome templates and project templates, I don't think they write like the same person. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reblocked. The claim to be G.Clark isn't credible, and, if true, he can regain access to that account by using e-mail.—Kww(talk) 05:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I forgot to add, my adding the "vandalism" tag was a mis-click, an honest but minor mistake. I do often revert edits of known socks but don't label them as vandalism unless they fit that criteria. If another editor reverts me back saying it was a good addition (rare) I always defer to the editor of the article and trust their judgement. I generally follow WP:DENY, but I'm not a slave to it nor do I war over it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good block, because it was performed by an admin totally uninvolved in the ArbCom case and the reasoning was fully explained. The initial block by Reaper Eternal, the apparent clandestine (secret, off-wiki) discussion by Reaper, Dennis Brown et. al and the removal of content by Dennis Brown were all handled poorly. Reaper and Dennis had expressed opinions on the case contrary to that of the Tim98Seven, which raises issues of involvement. Secret off-wiki discussions are result in unexplained administrator actions. I found Reaper Eternal's statement here to be less than complete; I falsely interpreted it at the time as saying the CU found evidence of socking. In the context of the AC page, the Tim98Seven post was mildly stated, the 94th comment, and a motion already had a majority ArbCom vote. Clearly there was no urgency to take action, and such action would have better been left to the page clerks. As there is no evidence of maliciousness or bad faith on any admin actions; I will not pursue this any further. Nobody Ent 12:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC) clarified Nobody Ent 19:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Before you go jumping up and down on Dennis or Reaper, please consider that other people's Bullshit-o-meters were also twitched by this editor's aparent need to weigh in on the ArbCom claification request of ultimate drama. I personally contacted the clerk who seemed to be active on the request raising my concerns about how the editor wandered into one of the red-hot drama locations on their second edit with no real indication at how they may have linked there. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Desperate call for grammer

iPad mini needs to be moved to iPad Mini. It is a high-traffic article obviously, so it should be moved quickly. Many thanks. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, isn't it officially described as the "iPad mini"? In advertising, its official website, and even news media, that seems to be the case. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not a mattar of grammar, Marcus, but of our guidelines and convention. It seems to me that the uppercase version is in agreement with iPod Touch, iPod Nano, etc. I'm sure the talk page archives for those articles are full of it. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 But the name of the product is iPad mini: [6] [7] [8]. This isn't a question of "grammer [sic]": Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait--you're asking me to move mini to Mini, and when I do, you say it really needs to be mini? tHIS IS GETTING TOO COMPLEX FOR ME--natti natti. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you just misattributed his statement with mine. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Complicated names. Late brain. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a proper noun as well as the common name: [9]. (those using lowercase will eventually use the right name when they read getting angry emails from vigilant grammarists.) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Google searches aren't case sensitive. Incidentally, "proper" isn't a proper noun, either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it isn't case sensitive. I just wanted to show the link. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The reputable tech news sites are in this order: CNET, Mashable, TechCrunch, Wired, Gizmodo, Engadget, PC World, PC Magazine, ZDNet and The Verge. A cursory search shows most of these are capitalizing it correctly. Many general news sites like the LA Times aren't savvy enough to know this soon after an announcement how to capitalize an Apple product. Gadgetian is just plain disreputable. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, why was a request made for this change without reference to the discussion of the proposed new name on the article's talk page in which there's clearly no consensus to make the move? (or little apparent interest in the topic!). Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... why does Marcus get to ignore the move-request? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this deeper now, it seems that the standard practice here is to put the second word in an Apple product's name in capitals on Wikipedia, even though official sources do not. At least this is the case with iPod Touch and iPod Nano. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And in six months, when the article is more stable and being frequented more by people who like improving articles than people who like buying iPads, it'll be moved over on that basis. But for the time being, let's leave it at the branded title so as not to waste people's time with endless move requests to the uncapitalised title, as happened with both the Mini and the Nano. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Name change assistance

I'm logging out for a bit, so would it be possible for a helpful admin or interested editor to guide User:Goutte de pluie through the name change procedure? I doubt they want to be confused with User:La goutte de pluie. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)  Done --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sanity check

Ok, just saw something rather interesting and I'm asking for a sanity check before I take any action

This IP and this user both have categories on their pages indicating that they're admins and checkusers. I highly doubt it, and to boot the IP has copied Jimbo's page, but he geo-locates to Germany. If I'm wrong about them, I'll happily take a trout  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything for that IP--did you get the number right? I've removed the administrator and CU claims, but I'm a bit surprised that their talk page is still empty. That is, that you haven't asked them about it. I strongly suggest you do so. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

OOPS... Here he is . My bad ! I've removed the three categories from his page and left him a note. His page is still a copy of Jimbo Wales' however.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The account,User:मालोजीराव, seems to be some combination of User:Elockid's talk and userpage. --Hu12 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt they mean any harm. They probably just wanted to use Elockid's page as a template, but neglected to remove the information that doesn't apply, probably due more to newbishness than an attempt at impersonation. I've removed Jimbo's userpage from the IP's talk page, but as far as I can tell मालोजीराव and the IP are unrelated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree--Hu12 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User ZomRe at Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_ZomRe_at_Byzantine_conquest_of_Bulgaria

Nobody Ent 20:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement

By a vote of 9-1, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Lord Roem (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Please delete

Can an admin please delete File:Miley3443picture.jpg Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. thanks. --Hu12 (talk) 2 I:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would of made the request via IRC but I'm mobile atm. Thank you for your promptness. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 00:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:TomPhan review

I've received a request from this user for a review of a 2008 block. There were very few edits at the time of the block, and apparently some socking issues. (See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TomPhan). In general I am supportive of allowing editors to return, especially after such an extended leave; however, I am not particularly active these days and not familiar with the user in question. It also appears that User:Only, the blocking admin, is not very active either. (although I will leave a note on their talk once I complete this post). Given my lack of knowledge and research - I ask the community what they feel is best in this situation. Thank you.

• Support unblock on very limited research and information at this time. — Ched :  ?  13:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If I read correctly, TomPhan was a sock of User:GENIUS(4th power) who was community banned in Feb 2009. The reasons were fairly extensive, as per the list of banned users (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I didn't bother to check all of the many socks, but this one at least socked as recent as February this year.--Atlan (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Buffs should probably be notified (will do in a second). He was harassed by his socks for a LONG time. At a minimum if they are unbanned, there probably should be some restriction and/or monitoring of that behavior again. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - That account is a sock of User:GENIUS(4th power), a longstanding abusive sockmaster, who is community banned. This would be like unblocking a Bambifan101 sock. If GENIUS(4th power) wants to request unbanning they have to go through the proper process. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the banned user, in making his request to Ched, did not voluntarily provide the whole backstory including the massive sockpuppet record and the history of harassment, leaving Ched with the misleading impression of this having been just a matter of "very few edits" back in 2008, then that all by itself is a compelling reason to reject the request. Among the absolute minimum criteria in considering unbans is that the editor in question has to be unreservedly honest and up front about their past. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose due to apparent recent socking. I have also tried to notify active previous targets of this discussion. --Nouniquenames 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comments from TomPhan copied here from his talk page at his request by JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC):

I have not edited since Mid/Late Feb 2008. I made 2 socks: VandelBlaster, and SockOfBannedUser, or something like that. I have sent Admin Only (Metros) who blocked me, and Admin Ched(admin I saw at RfA) the details of what I did wrong and why I would like to edit again. TomPhan (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentions of other Users, including that on my User Page is not correct. I am not sure why my 3 accounts are lumped together with those. Can this be reviewed please? Again I stopped editing at middle/end of Feb 2008.TomPhan (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Even not taking into account the GENIUS accounts, the TP SPI page has many more than two socks listed [10]. And according to another user at that SPI, TP harassed someone and even made death threats. The unblock request is disingenuous. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Also ignores the fact that he mentions he has multiple accounts...clearly hasn't learned from previous actions. Buffs (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• @FPaS. The "few edits" was my own conclusion when looking at the TomPhan contribs. Tom did say he created a Vandal Blaster sock, but our discussions were not lengthy. I'm not trying to swing this discussion one way or the other, but I'd hate for my own words and conclusions to be used or attributed to someone else - especially if I've voiced my thoughts poorly. I'm not familiar with Genius (4th level), and have not had much time to spend on wiki lately, which is why I brought this here. Just wanted to clarify that little bit. Also they did admit to poor behavior in the beginning - but other than block summaries, I'm not sure what that entails. Thanks folks. — Ched :  ?  22:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Is there some evidence connecting TomPhan to Genius beyond this tag added by a Genius sock? T. Canens (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought the tag was added by Jpgordon but it appears I was looking at the wrong user page. I guess beyond the tag, nothing connects them, but maybe someone dealing with the SPI cases at the time can enlighten us.--Atlan (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the greatest extent possible There is no reason to allow this person back into WP. There is no remorse for past actions just a weak and unsubstantiated "what? no, that wasn't me" denial. Given the EXTENSIVE history of sockpuppetry which also included accusations of murder (not hyperbole here, actual accusations of murder), block evasion, no remorse, an attempt to trick Ched into unblocking a banned user, etc... not just a NO, but HELL no! Buffs (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Need more evidence?

  Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/GENIUS(4th power)

  Buffs (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Did you miss the part where we doubt the connection between TomPhan and Genius?--Atlan (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • If by "we" you mean "you", then no. If there are others calling the linkage into question, I'm not seeing it here. Furthermore, behavior alone is consistent with GENIUS. Please read the Genius long term abuse log. However, even if there wasn't a linkage between the accounts, I'd still oppose on the grounds that he doesn't have just a "few" accounts, but almost three dozen confirmed socks as well as a plethora of suspected IPs. Accusations of criminal wrongdoing + disingenuous requests + misleading + lies + well, I suppose that's enough = no way I support an unblock and I don't see how anyone else could either. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • It was T. Canens that posed the question. I am not T. Canens. Is this concept difficult for you?--Atlan (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Words are hard...my mistake. I see your point now. Buffs (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close & deny per WP:SNOWBALL? Buffs (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

... and tell him the community won't unban, but WP:BASC might? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Before closing, I'd like to see a reasonable answer to T. Canens' question. Is it invisible to everyone else?--Atlan (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? Whether or not there is a link with Genius is irrelevant (though it IS worth answering). We aren't going to unban him. Buffs (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Well, what's undoubtedly true is that the TomPhan account and his admitted sock (VandleBlaster (talk · contribs) were single-purpose accounts created to harass Buffs. What's also undoubtedly true is that at around the same time there was someone, over a protracted period of time and with a large number of socks, who was also out to harass Buffs. Whether the obvious assumption is true that this harasser is the same, or whether this one just had the bad luck that his pattern of abuse matched that of an even worse abuser makes little difference to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

^^^ This. Buffs (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense.--Atlan (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Further comments from TomPhan copied from his talk page at his request by JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand and respect the Oppose entries above, I would however ask that it be based on my actions and the socks that I have honestly admitted to. I believe that this is accurate here: [11].

Possibly someone can review the Genious accounts that I have been lumped together with. Hopefully it will be easily seen that they are unrelated.

To restate my original comments to Only(Metros), who blocked me 4 years ago when I showed him that I was socking:

Only, I tried Wikipedia over 4 years ago, and got off to a bad start. I have given much thought to the problems I caused back then, and I would like to make amends. Please consider allowing me to edit again. I would like to work on artilces related to geography. I truly believe that I will make positive contributions in this area. I am sorry for the problems I have caused in the past, and feel that in the time that has passed, I have matured. Respectfully, Tom Phan

TomPhan (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support per my long-held belief that indefinite bans are actually detrimental to encyclopedia building. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that allowing people who have made death threats against other editors to edit is far more detrimental to encyclopedia building than bans. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor on this issue, I agree that at this point that GENIUS(4th power) has been a major source of problem to Wikipedia. However, the fact remains the fact that there is absolutely no point or reason in denying that he has created several alternate egos, which have been used to harass other users or use them for various abusive purposes. And even now he is denying the connection between his TomPhan alter account and his main GENIUS(4th power) account. Surprisingly, he has now developed a contrition and a conscience about the bad deeds he has done. That I fully understand. However, I am really starting to wonder whether he's back to play another game with the community (like he has done in the past) or actually make amends. If he's really apologetic about his actions, he needs to firstly acknowledge the fact that he's been a very naughty boy by operating several other accounts. For the time being, I oppose Genius' return to Wikipedia until or unless he acknowledges his connections with the other accounts he's operated. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar, again

Further to recent press reports on Gibraltarpedia#Controversy and concerns about Wikipedia's commercialisation, Jimbo said last night that in his view, there ought to be a five-year ban on Gibraltar DYKs on the main page, and that this should be the subject of a wider community discussion. Current status is that the main page may have up to one Gibraltar hook every 24 hours. I've started another discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Gibraltar, again to see if that decision should be revisited. --AndreasKolbe JN466 14:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this isn't a neutral notification. For one, why does Jimbo's opinion matter enough to even mention in the notification? Silverseren^C 04:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Jimbo is just one editor. His role as founder has been devolved several times by giving his super powers to the community on many cases. As such the proper way it to RfC conducted in the DYK talk pages with a neutral addition to WP:CENT. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikighost1 and others

I've just blocked a series of users; Wikighost1 (talk · contribs · logs), Wikighost2 (talk · contribs · logs), Wikighost3 (talk · contribs · logs), Wikighost4 (talk · contribs · logs), Wikighost5 (talk · contribs · logs), Wikighost6 (talk · contribs · logs), Wikighost7 (talk · contribs · logs), Wikighost8 (talk · contribs · logs), Wikighost9 (talk · contribs · logs) and Wikighost10 (talk · contribs · logs). Some of the accounts were created 19 October and others 25 October all within a few minutes of each other. Not all the accounts have made edits but the ones that did were vandalism. Mainly to East Pen Island. If someone thinks I was wrong to block them then feel free to unblock them. There was a Wikighost (talk · contribs · logs) but as they were from 2004 I don't think there is a connection. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

They're all  Confirmed to being the same editor and the underlying IPs have a long history of vandalism. I'm calling those a good block - Alison ^❤ 12:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Legalactionjackson and article Lutalo Muhammad

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

---

User:Legalactionjackson, who self-identifies (diff) as Wayne Muhammad, has spent today repeatedly removing sourced information from his son's article, despite repeated requests to stop and engage in discussion. Instead, he's thrown repeated accusations of vandalism at any editor who restores the material. There's no violation of BLP that I can see; all of the disputed content is well-sourced and neutral. I've filed a report at the 3RR board which provides diffs, etc.

Beyond this, however, Legalactionjackson's post at the Helpdesk (see diff above) could be interpreted as a legal threat, especially in combination with his username (for which he's been warned). He appears to also be socking as User:VIGILANT CITIZEN and logged out as IP 2.125.111.139. A number of users have attempted to explain the situation, both on his talkpage and at the helpdesk; it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Can I ask an uninvolved admin (I've reverted him once and filed a 3RR report on him) to step in and block/page protect as they see fit? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist has just blocked, thanks for that. This can be closed. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Was this intended for WP:ANI, or just an announcement? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Intended for ANI, my bad. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a request for help. If it disturbs you to have ANI stuff on AN, move it. Nobody Ent 13:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the "teach a man to fish" method :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the implicit suggestion that I don't already know how to fish... can we just close this already? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Talk:Kim Hyun-a#Title

Editor Kauffner moved several articles without discussion, one against an RM decision, and reverts all attempts to move them.

Yoona

Moved to Yoona [12] as a result of this RM: Talk:Im Yoona#Move discussion in progress 2.

Yet, moved by Kauffner to Im Yoon-A: [13] and then moved by another user to Im Yoona [14], i.e. back to where it was before the move request.

Please reeforce the RM decision.

Per discussion on the talk page linked from the title, I tried to move the page back as an undiscussed page move by speedy-deleting the redirect from Yoona, but Kauffner reverted again: [15].

Hyuna

Moved by Kauffner to Kim Hyun-a ([16]) after being at Hyuna for 1 year and 11 months (since this move [17] on the very next day after its creation.)

Since then, there have been 3 attempts to move the page by 3 users:

1. December 16, 2012: An IP tries to move the page to Hyuna by copypasting ([18]) and is reverted by a user who states: "while i don't necessarily believe this is the correct title for the article, copy/paste moves won't work. undo for now." ([19]). This copypaste probably made it impossible to move the article back to Hyuna over a redirect for a non-admin.
2. January 13, 2012: Kauffner reverts another move: [20].
3. October 24, 2012: Kauffner reverts another move, this time by me: [21].

Please move the page back to where it was before the undiscussed move by Kauffner.

Per discusion on the talk page linked from the title, I tried to move the page back as an undiscussed page move by speedy-deleting the redirect from Hyuna, but Kauffner reverted me: [22].

Taeyeon

Moved by Kauffner to Kim Tae-yeon ([23]) after having been at Taeyeon from the moment of its creation 1 year and 5 months prior.

Since then, Kauffner has reverted 1 attempt to move it:

1. April 9, 2012: [24]

Please move the page back to where it was before the undiscussed move by Kauffner.

Per discussion on the talk page linked from the title, I tried to move the page back as an undiscussed page move by speedy-deleting the redirect from Taeyeon, but Kauffner reverted me: [25].

(There are more.)

I must add that in the Yoona case, Kauffner moved the page to an incorrect title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Given name (which says not to capitalize the second syllable on a given name if there's no established English spelling.) In another case (Hyoyeon: [26]), he moved it to an incorrect title. This only shows the randomness of these page moves. What we have as a result is that the Korean articles he moved are all over the place, some hyphenated, some not. Some were succesfully defended against him and are without a family name. All four of the singers mentioned above don't have a family name in their article titles in the Korean Wikipedia. By the way, 3 of the 4 family names are Kim, which is not very informative in Korea. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I miscapitalized Yoona's name last December, and you're here to complain? That was corrected a long time ago, you know. As for the other accusations, I moved these articles from nicknames to full names months ago, per WP:NCP#Single_name. At about that time, there were a series of successful RMs proposed by Morning Sunshine that moved various Korean celebs to their full names. As with the other recent ANI complaints about me, this is based on IIO's obsessive research into my edit history, as you can see at Talk:Kim Hyun-a. Kauffner (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

These are not "accusations". I simply stated that you started renaming the articles about Girls' Generation and 4Minute members when you didn't have understanding of how they should be titled, that your actions resulted in a conflict with other editors and in the current unconsistency of the titles. Note that I'm not asking to punish you. I have nothing against you personally. I understand your position about full names, but I think it's not correct. I'm simply asking admins to move these 3 pages to where they were before last December. I don't want to go through an RM to move them. It would take too much time. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

From Talk:Kim Hyun-a#Title:

Conclusion

The issue is not receiving administrator attention. The admin who closed the Yoona RM, refused to enforce the decision of Wikipedia editors. To me, it means that no one cares and no one is going to help. I don't want to fight with Kauffner about this issue that he seems to feel very strongly about. It would take too much time. Basically, I think the Hyuna's case is obvious. Just look at the official site — she is called Hyuna except one single time in her profile. This is exactly what I believe this article has to do — to call her Kim Hyun-a once in the opening sentence. The article should start with "Kim Hyun-a is a", but be at Hyuna and refer to her as Hyuna.

Now, I am leaving this discussion and the topic on the Administrators' noticeboard.

P.S. Most admins come to J-pop and K-pop articles only to delete stuff that they don't like, without actually researching the subject. As a result, I believe admins unconsciously (or consciously) vandalize them, and the editors who actually know something about the subjects don't cooperate and quit. If someone doesn't care or even hates something, how can the person contribute positively to an article about it? What if I came to an article about your favorite politician or your favorite 60s band and tagged it as fancruft? I'm sure there's plenty of stuff most people don't care about and don't need in The Beatles article. This is exacly the same.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: You cannot unconsciously vandalize anything. Vandalism means a deliberate attempt to make Wikipedia worse. Any action which is not a deliberate attempt to make Wikipedia worse is not vandalism, and a different word needs to be used to describe it. --Jayron32 12:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• As I understand it, IIO is creating a club, and membership invitations will be sent out to everyone who submits a complaint against me. So those of you who haven't submitted one yet may be missing out. Kauffner (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock check

What should be done about User:SympathyTheDevilFor? Considering their latest edit (they've only made a few since registering in early October), it's clear this is a sockpuppet of someone over at Wikipediocracy. It's interesting that they're claiming to be a Senior Editor III. Maybe if you add up the edits of their original account and all their other sockpuppets, it adds up to that? Silverseren^C 04:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked and blocked him. Happy? Given that I'm a forum admin over there, that should cause your brain to hurt just a little ;) - Alison ^❤ 05:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a little. So, it was TungstenCarbide? Silverseren^C 07:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Go run along and add the badge of shame to his userpage - Alison ^❤ 07:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm not really into that. Though you should probably add a note on the talk page saying you enacted the block, so there's some notification for others. And thanks, by the way. Silverseren^C 08:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - and you're welcome ;) - Alison ^❤ 08:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged. No idea what the aversion is. GiantSnowman 08:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTGRAVEDANCING. That may help you understand the inconsistency and weirdness that surrounds that particular action. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Recommend no one bother to read this useless garbage essay. 174.255.99.193 (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That usually only applies to users that were productive at some point. In this case ? think it is likely nobody cares if it is tagged or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Koov

I've had a good look of this user through WP:SPI, and it appears that this is a long standing abusive sockpuppeter who has been evading his block for the past 2 years, racking up to a total of 66 sockpuppets. Given my lack of knowledge and research - I ask the community what they feel is best in this situation - Either to implement a ban or leave it per WP:DENY. Thank you. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 03:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

center | frameless

Hi I am having problems removing "File: |center|frameless" from above my inserted logo, top right of this page: Bolton School. Does anyone have any ideas? Iam sure it is a quick fix but I am relatively new to this game. Thanks, John, Head of Marketing at Bolton School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Newbould (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Although this isn't the correct forum, I see that someone already fixed it. John, you should beware of WP:COI and you need to be extremely careful in making any edits to subjects you're directly affiliated with (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

NOINDEX-ing of evidence page

Hi - I NOINDEX-ed User:Skyring/RFCU_evidence - this evidence page and the User:Skyring has removed it and asked for an explanation - I have explained but the user has as yet failed to replace the NOINDEX template to the evidence page - please can an Admin assist - thanks - Youreallycan 20:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at similar pages - at the RFCU archives here - I find that they do not include NOINDEX tags. In fact, I could only find one. This one. It doesn't seem to be the general procedure. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason you want your alleged evidence page republished by search engines? Youreallycan 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't given it any thought. I looked at the instructions for raising RFCUs and found no mention. I was asked by several editors here only a few days ago to launch an RFCU and I'm doing it. All of this material is freely available on diverse WP pages. I show it as evidence, because that's what it is. Everything is accurate and linked to the diffs. What impels you, specifically? --Pete (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I am impelled by wanting your so called evidence page not showing up in Google search engine results - please replace the NOINDEX template to avoid that possibility - thanks - Youreallycan 20:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So it's a personal inclination? Given the lack of any policy advice, perhaps we should await advice from admin staff. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This one is also noindexed. Like everything else in Wikipedia, it helps if you know people. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noindexed. All RFC/Us are noindexed in MediaWiki:Robots.txt, so any evidence on them outside of the technical confines of Robots.txt should get the template. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The page should be noindexed. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Okey-doke! Thanks.  Done --Pete (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's appreciated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Meta discussion about NOINDEXING userspace and projectspace pages

(edit conflict) This page and all similar pages should be NOINDEXED. It may be time for the community to update its attention to which pages in Wikipedia space should be excluded from search engines. The answer, in my opinion, is a large number of them, the main exception being guideline and policy pages. And pages drafted in userspace but intended for Wikipedia space should follow the same presumption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, thanks for that. YRC asked me, and I had no clue. Now I get why they aren't tagged since it is automatic, and why they need to be done manually if they are off venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Without going into another round of something that needs a widespread discussion, it might be time to revisit moving userspace out of the eyes of the search engines; there is no good reason to be searching Google for a specific user on Wikipedia, and userpages which are verbatim copies of deleted articles should not be something that a search engine can pull up; many people don't understand Wikipedia conventions, and User:Example/(Insert name here) (deleted as non-notable, and a possible BLP violation, then userfied six months ago) looks pretty much the same as (Insert name here) to many non-editors. It's one of the reasons that my sandbox articles-in-progress always have cryptic names (usually an initialism), so that it's less likely that someone will pull up my work and think it's an actual article. Horologium (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For some types of searches, Google is easier to get the results you are looking for than the internal search (at least for me). I can see why noindexing pages that look like articles is a good idea, but user pages are about the only shop window we allow editors and so I don't see a reason to block them. In the spirit of openness I think the principle should be that everything is indexable unless there is a reason it shouldn't be (and for evidence pages and articles-in-userspace there is a good reason). I don't know if it is technically possible, but my ideal would be that userpages (user:Thryduulf, including things transcluded onto it) would be indexed by default, while user subpages (user:Thryduulf/Conversion sandbox, even if transcluded onto another page) would be noindexed by default. A trackable {{index this page}} template or __INDEXTHISPAGE__ magic word overwrite the default noindex. I say trackable so as to make abuse (e.g. shoving it on a fake article) findable. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• I will pop in to quickly say (1) NOINDEX is a suggestion that some search engines follow and which others may ignore. (2) Over the years many sites have mirrored Wikipedia's content. They do this to get search engine traffic, and quite happily strip our NOINDEX instruction because they very much want to be indexed. NOINDEX is not a solution. If content shouldn't be visible because it might damage the reputations of editors who might be personally indentifiable, the pages should be blanked as a courtesy to the editors. NOINDEX is not sufficient. I am not aware of any sites that routinely mirror old versions of our pages.
• I oppose noindexing large swaths of Wikipedia. Our search function is inferior to Google's. I want to be able to use Google to find things.
• The best solution is to selectively blank pages that have the potential to cause real life problems for our volunteers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• I want to echo the comments of Jehochman. If I were Google, I would take the position that I am going to honor NO-index, as long as it is used sparingly, and appropriately. I see a good justification for NOINDEXing of user subpages, as those are often articles under development, yet might look like articles to the uninitiated, so could be misleading. More importantly, we don't want editors creating marginal articles in user subpages, and indexing them, so they get visibility, even though not meeting our standards.
  In contrast, I see no justification for the NOINDEXing of user pages and user talk page. Cutting out a huge swath of material such as user pages is the type of thing that might cause Google to rethink its decision. Remember, their goal is to be the search engine for everything on the internet, and they are voluntarily agreeing to provide limits on that goal, let's not abuse it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • User talk space is already NOINDEXed by default and I doubt Google (or any other search engine) noticed or cared. I don't see how extending it to user space would cause a problem. Jenks24 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I doubt Google cares about user pages, and if they stopped respecting NOINDEX and we kicked up a fuss about it, it would cause a shitstorm for them in the real world, so they won't. By far the most important pages in dispute resolution are history pages (because of diffs), and those have been noindexed since the very beginning. Thrydulf, per WP:NOTHOST we should absolutely not be providing users with "shop windows". 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• I've no idea why all of userspace (not just user talk) isn't noindexed by default. It eliminates the entire point of vanity pages, for instance, as well as icky process stuff like this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• It does not take away the base problem, it is just hiding a symptom. Plain vanity, advertising, attack pages etc. should simply be removed, deleted, blanked, whatever. Whether they are in userspace, mainspace or talkspace - they occur everywhere. NOINDEX takes away the immediate threat (for that namespace), the work still needs to be done. As said above, google respects NOINDEX, other search engines maybe don't (and seen that useful information is available in userspace, search engines might want to be able to find it and selectively ignore noindex there). Also, Wikipedia mirrors may just disable the NOINDEX and there you go, the pages can still be found. Thé solution to search engines ignoring NOINDEX, people plainly linking to their userpage from outside ('look, we have a page on Wikipedia, it is here!'), or mirrors disabling NOINDEX before publishing the page is to make sure the info is simply not there anymore. I am for these reasons against adding NOINDEX, as it will make people leave the stuff ('it is noindex anyway'). The nofollow on the external links did not really stop the spam ... --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It may not stop people adding spam, but it will stop it showing up on gsearch results, so it's beneficial if only for that. Pages are routinely deleted even if they have NOINDEX manually specified, so I'm not convinced it'll make the task of dunging out userspace at MfD any more difficult. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's less of a problem if it's on a a mirror site, because it doesn't get the high visibility created by Wikipedia's search rank (that's why spammers come here after all). Mirror sites are probably lower than internet forums in visibility. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• I support much more noindexing, as external search presence gets in the way of open discussion and increases the perverse incentive for soapboxing. This is an encyclopedia, not a SaaS for SEO's. We should also have self-sufficient internal search functions just as we should be self-sufficient for content. If you've got some specific suggestions to improve our search code, or some example searches that Google does better than we do, please put them at VPT or Bugzilla. Also if we're talking about transparency, people with COI's related to the topic might want to mention them so we know where they're coming from, just saying. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Skyring/RFCU evidence

Users are allowed to compile evidence pages. This one is allowable, because any negative assertion is supported by a diff. I expect the user will not leave this hanging too long. Once the research is done (expediently) an RFC/U should be filed, and then the page can be blanked. Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but did anyone here ever question the current existence of User:Skyring/RFCU? The issue of concern seems to solely relate to whether to noindex it and other pages. (In terms of the first issue, even if it currently isn't routinely done for evidence pages, it doesn't seem there is a good reason not to noindex it and there are good reasons to index it, as long as RFC/Us are also effectively noindexed.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Me and my comeback

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Hi all admins; all people. I don't know if all know me (well the ones who lived here early; knows me for sure.) I see Wikipedia has changed. I created a account year past year- with a hope to make collaborative edits- but the dream which I saw, was unfortunately not fulfilled. Wikipedia changed; is changing and will change. Thats a universal truth. It is very sad to observe how drastically Wikipedia had changed over the last few years. We are losing editors full of enthusiasm to edit. This is not to be blamed on the user- but on the community. Over the past months and years we have also lost a lot of admins- the very best ones; the very precious ones. No, don't catch me wrong. You may think I am speaking only for my comeback. I have a story, too. I had achieved a ton of awards; cupcakes; and barnstars of all sorts. My edit count maybe less, only 5,600+, but I don't care about it. What I am writing is a no-drama. It is straight from my mind- what I am feeling is what I am writing. Some people here, not all, are selfish. They are, they argue. You can segregate them out easily out of other Wikipedians. Once, long ago, I was proud to be a Wikipedian. Now, I amn't. This is so true. This is perhaps the biggest para I have written. And I had taken the serious step to decide to retire. But I didn't. Wikipedia is in my heart.

I even have old friends here. I don't know whether they still are active or not. I am concerned about Wikipedia's future. With this sentence I close my thoughts, only with a hope that the community remains civil and good- not what I experienced in my times. Thanking you, Dipankan001. @DipankanUpgraded! ^{Tag me!} 07:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see any reason why this is posted on the administrator's noticeboard. Rants about your personal feelings regarding Wikipedia belong in your user space. Leaving for a week or two and then coming back is not something the general community needs to be informed of. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Flip-flop (politics)

Resolved

 – User(s) blocked.. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Has been beset by an SPA (User:Daveandaustin)sopecialising in this article and Romnesia, who was blocked for edit war thereon, and who now after his block resumes with such edits as [27]

I suggest he be talked to sternly. He is being notified. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

backlog at 3RR

There are a several cases of edit warring that have been pending review for quite a while. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but are the parties still edit warring? If they've stopped, then blocks may not be eminently necessary. Just something to keep in mind. Heels time all wounds, or something like that. --Jayron32 13:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Backlog cleared. Turns out everyone needed a block, and I have issued those that needed them (there were 3 open reports, two needed blocks, and one had been blocked but the report never closed). I think we're up to date on that one, I see no more open reports. --Jayron32 13:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of open reports are never good; either action should be taken on the disputes in question, or the reports should be marked as stale. Thanks, Jayron, for resolving the situation. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would never call three "lots". There were three open reports. Now, the oldest was a few hours old when I closed it. But the page wasn't exactly backlogged. Yes, ideally action should be taken on open reports in a timely fashion. But if perchance an incident reported in such a report resolves itself without the need to block someone, that's a nice happy accident, and there's no need to block someone over a technical 3RR violation if the problem is working itself out according to best practices when the report is finally acted upon. So yeah, stale reports are bad, except when occasionally doing nothing ends up letting the parties involved in the dispute start to work out a solution the right way. In those cases, blocking a technical 3RR violation isn't productive. That's all I was saying. --Jayron32 03:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you'd already taken care of it, and since I didn't have time to go through the page history when everything had already been resolved, I didn't know that there were three; how is just three a backlog? And I'm not urging that old reports result in blocks; rather, I'm urging that old reports be marked as stale. My intended point is that we're always better off when there are fewer open threads; much better to mark a stale thread as stale than to keep it sitting there waiting for someone who might levy an unhelpful block. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, regarding your lack of knowledge that there were only 3, you could have known that had you read the comment I made that you responded to. When I said "there were 3 open reports", what I had meant by that was "There were 3 open reports". Not sure how I could have made that plainer. And none was strictly "stale", the oldest was 23 hours old when I responded, but the behavior was a case of long-term edit warring (and likely sockpuppetry as the account had some precocious knowledge of Wikipedia) and so was actionable. The second was about 12 hours old when I reveiwed it, but the account had been blocked within an hour of the report, so it was just a bookkeeping error and not one of action. I merely made the note and closed the report. The third was 7 hours old. So yeah, the oldest was growing a bit old, and it was fine to ask here for someone to look it over. Which was done. --Jayron32 12:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's called I misread your comment and thought that there were six reports; sorry. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests

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

---

There is a tiny little backlog at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Not an admin matter, but this is red. Anyway, it would be great if people with a minute to spare could take a look at those. Thanks, --81.173.237.215 (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Any longstanding editor is permitted to verify and potentially make those edits ... the category is monitored by many (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I did a few. It's down to 7 requests. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Remove redlinked images from user archives

Minor issue. These two pages have redlinked images:

• User talk:ClockworkSoul/Archive11
• User talk:Crzrussian/Archive 32

They are protected pages. I am trying to clear the backlog at Category:Articles with missing files. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wondering if it might make sense for the category to somehow not include talk pages. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference if a six-year-old user talk page archive has a redlink in it. If it is technically possible to automatically exclude talk pages so they don't show up in that backlog that seems like a good thing, but I don't have a clue how one would go about making that happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be done already. The Mediawiki software bungs them in Category:Pages with missing files (except for those two rogues). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because they're subpages? That's the only thing I can suggest, but I've not convinced myself. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of scope user talk page

Out of scope user talk page User talk:Rejivamadevan, see also userpage, thanks--Musamies (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a WP:FAKEARTICLE ... is a bit of an WP:AUTOBIO/a bit MySpacey ... but it's non-promotional, and does meet many of the elements that are ok under WP:UP. Have you tried talking to them, or WP:MFD? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Project Backlog

Resolved

Greetings Admins, There is currently a great big block of users at WP:PERM/RW that seem to not be getting processed. Could an Admin comfortable doing so please take a moment from their busy mopping elsewhere and get that going for some of the applicants? Thank you guys and gals, keep up the excellent work.

Cheers! T.I.M^(Contact) 00:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Except for TruPepitoM, who's in the middle of a discussion, everyone's been granted rights or told that they shouldn't have them right now. Thanks to the people who worked on it, and thanks for letting us know, TIM. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Carter Ham

Several of you admins. may want to put this on your watchlist. Not a problem at the moment (which is why I'm not at RFPP), but I suspect it could easily become one in the near future with respect to the Bengzahi attack. — ChedZILLA 21:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Block review

Would another admin be kind enough to look over my recent block of IP 198.147.225.24? I've blocked the IP for a year due its use by User:Colton Cosmic, but I would have thought it should have been autoblocked - obviously I can't do that manually, so this seemed like the next best solution. It's a long block for an IP, but looking at the contribution history it seemed to be used so rarely as to make the length acceptabe. I'm also aware that linking a user to an IP address is frowned upon, but since he made his identity pretty clear I don't think I'm in violation of WP:OUTING. However, I would appreciate a second opinion... I'm going offline shortly, so if another admin disagrees with my actions please feel free to change or remove the block without waiting for a response from me first. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 15:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Block looks fine, but shouldn't there be one of those you've been blocked here's how to post an unblock request things on the talk page? Nobody Ent 15:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC) <-- not an admin, and rarely kind

I'd say a block for 6 months would be enough - that is what ArbCom specified ("After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.") GiantSnowman 15:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the idea was they could edit IP after six months; it was "don't sock, and appeal after six months." Nobody Ent 15:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No, but I don't see the point of any longer block, especially as the IP appears to be static dynamic. GiantSnowman 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

? Isn't a static IP an argument for a longer (indef) block? If it was dynamic we'd want a short one, right? Nobody Ent 15:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm an idiot, that's what I meant. See Colton's talk page for a list of recent IPs. GiantSnowman 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IP assignment is static, but I'm going to put an {{anonblock}} template on its talk page in case it gets reassigned during the block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Re "linking a user to an IP address is frowned upon" — that's bad for checkusers (and perhaps OTRS people) to do. For the rest of us, who don't have access to non-public information, there's no problem with doing it, as long as you can back up your assertion — especially when the IP itself makes the connection, like here. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Good block, thanks for doing it. Colton's endless crybaby routine got old a long time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for chiming in (and to Reaper for placing the {{anonblock}} that I managed to forget...). The point about a six month block being sufficient is a good one, and I'll go and amend it accordingly. Much obliged. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Two more Colton IPs have just appeared: 198.147.225.33 and 198.147.225.23 (blocked). Could someone with more experience than me execute an appropriate rangeblock, please? Yunshui 雲‍水 10:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Colton Cosmic so we can keep a proper log of all the IPs he uses. GiantSnowman 10:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have implemented a reasonably small rangeblock that includes recent addresses. BTW - the range was once block as a proxy. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Reduced availability of Arbitrators and Functionaries due to Hurricane Sandy

All,

Just a quick note that a number of Arbitrators and Functionaries are either not available at all, or have limited availablity due to the impact of Hurricane Sandy; please bear with us. Of course, if you have any urgent matters please use the usual channels, but don't be afraid to ping one of us by e-mail or on IRC as needed.

James F. (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Cross posting: Does the German proposal for ancillary copyright threaten Wikipedia?

Hey there. I just wanted to cross post this from the VP:MISC board, since most of our copyright experts on this project, or at least most of the ones I've dealt with, are either admins, or are active on this board. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider crossposting to Wikimedia-l? It may already be on there, I haven't been following my mailing lists too closely this week. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 14:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible School Project

At least, I think its a school project. If its not a school project, then something else very weird is going on. A hoard of SPAs have popped up to edit Interactive design, which was a redirect until yesterday. The results appear to be well intentioned, which is why I suspect a school project of some sort, but they are a bit rough around the edges. What is the WP page/project that tends to coordinate these things? I think that some hand-holding may be needed here, and wanted to know where to go to get some assistance. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SUP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reported this on the talk page there, to get someone knowledgeable in these things to try to figure out exactly what is going on here, and I suspect to try to establish a dialog with the teacher if it is a class project. In the mean time, at least one other WP regular has jumped into the article to give some clean-up assistance. (Thanks, TP!) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The one IP editor (69.41.96.11/nat-tbd.scad.edu), is an educational institution IP address registered to Savannah College of Art and Design. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note for on forums for the future: the WP ambassador program is trying to promote the Education noticeboard as a central point for dealing with student editing issues. The Interior (Talk) 04:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello there! you are right this is a group project, we couldn't find a definition for Interactive Design so we proceeded to create a new entry. hopefully that doesn't violate any Wikipedia regulations, it's still a work in progress. --Interactivista (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Interactivista, could you please make sure everyone on the project reads the following?

Actually, it's just the opposite. The only "problem" we have is that we here at Wikipedia want to help you and to be part of your project. Here are my suggestions:

• Have each member of the project go to their user page and post a little about themselves. No personal info needed, just a little bit about the school and the project.
• You have to talk about the project somewhere, so why not do it on the article talk page?

Like I said, we love school projects, we want to help you and we want to work with you. That's hard to do when all we see are your edits and none of you engages in conversation with us. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Second chance for dannyboy1209

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.

---

Should dannyboy1209 be given another chance to change his ways on wikipedia? 92.0.113.96 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• How about you ask for user talk page access back, per the instructions on your talk page? Submit a proper unblock request. Using IP socks to do this is not going to help. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Block extension review

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

---

Please see User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#October_2012 and related discussion User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Revert_please Nobody Ent 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the block extension. DC's claim that blocked users get additional leeway on their talk pages is in conflict with the principle itself. Block users do not get to use their talk pages to continue disputes in a calculated manner, they are given more leeway because it is recognized they may be angry and lash out due to the block. Further, declaring that one will sit out the block without indicating they will stop the behavior they were blocked for seems like a good reason to extend the block. If they don't recognize they can't keep doing the things that got them blocked, then the blocks should be continued until they do. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable extension, since he was again intentionally violating the I-ban. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An interaction ban is a way of telling two or more users that the community finds that they do more harm than good when they interact or comment on one another. DC is free to disagree with this position, but he is not free to deliberately ignore a valid community imposed sanction. If he lacks the self control to just leave it alone then blocking is more than appropriate. Personally I feel like he is getting off lightly since this is such an obvious case of deliberate, premeditated violation of said restrictions. I don't like that we have to do things this way, it would be better if people who openly despise each other could just grow up and learn to avoid one another, but that clearly is not the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree with extension- DC's first post after the block did not violate the interaction ban. Then, an admin pokes him about it, and DC responds. Later, Future Perfect shows up and lengthens the block. This looks like entrapment by the admin corps. "Hey, why don't you go bait DC into commenting on his block, while he's hot and bothered by just being blocked, and then I will swoop in and lengthen it?" Of course, that probably isn't how it happened, but this is what it looks like. Since an admin needled him about it, DC probably thought it was ok to talk about it. We non-admin editors believe that you admins are united in thought when acting in an administrative capacity. So, if this extension stands, shouldn't Drmies be blocked for baiting DC? Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• The extension is fine. If DC thinks that he can ignore the interaction ban as long as he "sits out the block", then perhaps we should give him a block he can't sit out. T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• A comment like that, Tim, is a pretty good indication you should have your block button taken away.  Volunteer Marek  23:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I like this. Copping a block on the chin, and being willing to sit it out, is now evidence that you don't take it seriously and so the block should be extended? What a load of crap, especially since complaining about the block would doubtless be interpreted the same way. Reyk _YO! 23:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Come on y'all, I was asking DC to explain themselves. I was hoping they'd say something that would get them unblocked and they didn't---but to turn around and make their answer a rationale for increasing the block, well, this is AN so I should mind my words. It's wrong. You could cut their TPA, for instance, which would be silly enough, but their clarification of why they did what they did cannot be a reason for increasing. It seems obvious to me that a renewed violation would lead to a very, very long block, but come on--I asked him. If you want to be consistent then you should, as Cla68 suggests, block me for baiting. That wouldn't be the worst thing to happen (I got an essay I need to finish...), but it would sodomize my perfectly virginal block log. Ah yes. Also, see my comments at DC's talk page, please. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• The problematic part for me is: "It was possible for me to break the interaction ban because I am willing to sit out whatever block I was going to be given." If a user has no intent of respecting a ban because they are always willing to take whatever sanction is given for the breach of the ban, why should they be permitted to keep editing if it is clear they will just keep breaking the ban and hope they win on the ratcheting math of sanctions? MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• So you block them when they break the ban, not before. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Once he's declared he has no intent of abiding by the ban and has broken the ban at least once, I don't see why an indef block until he agrees to abide by the ban is a bad idea. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• He did NOT "declare he has no intent of abiding by the ban". Where you getting that from?  Volunteer Marek  00:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm getting it from "It was possible for me to break the interaction ban because I am willing to sit out whatever block I was going to be given. It's just that simple." and "I'm content to sit out blocks for things that I have done . . ." MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Which is not at all the same as "declare he has no intent of abiding by the ban". Again, where did you get that from?  Volunteer Marek  00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• What Reyk said. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)Actually blocks are preventative not punitive. So if he states he intends to break his ban, the obligations is to block him before he does so in order to prevent the action. We don't block afterwards just to punish them. -DJSasso (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocks are rarely handed out before a person commits an infraction. Thus, blocks are corrective, as in used to correct the behavior of WP editors. That's why blocks of increasing duration are used. No additional corrective action was needed for this situation, per the comments above. Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies: I don't see how "If I choose to be, I'll still be here editing after ChrisO/L'ecrivant/Helatrobus/Prioryman/etc is banned", which was the first infraction during that thread, was in any way triggered or provoked by what you said or asked. It was just a gratuitous expression of hostility thrown in without any other reason at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• But, it did look like an invitation to discuss the block didn't it? If he had said something about Prioryman in a more polite tone after Drmies' invitation, would you still have done what you did? Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if it had been such an invitation, DC is intelligent enough to know that he is not allowed to discuss Prioryman even if invited (by a third party). Besides, there is a difference between an invitation to discuss his block and an invitation to discuss Prioryman – nothing in what he said about Prioryman was in any obvious way pertinent to whatever answer he meant to give to Drmies' questions. (And, as I said, the first infraction came before Drmies even asked him that question.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect, you and DC have history. A couple of years ago, a previous sanction of yours against DC at AE was overturned on appeal. There are over 600 admins here. Would it not have been wiser to let someone else handle it? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies is an admin, correct? So, that conversation, initiated by him, was between him and DC, right? Your fellow admin, Drmies, has asked you not to intervene in the conversation that he and DC were having, correct? So, you're basically telling Drmies to piss off? How about you admins get on the same page so us editors don't have to suffer the consequences of the inconsistent and misleading messages you send us? Or, based on your past history with DC, did you see an opportunity to get a hit in while he was down? Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, yes, Drmies is an admin. Now please let Fut. Perf. respond to my remarks, and stop adding fuel to the fire. Sheesh. Do you think that setting one up against the other will make a difference? No, I didn't ask them to not intervene! Kolbe, that goes for you too: your comments are unproductive, and you should be the last one (since YRC is blocked) to comment here in the name of objectivity. Fut. Perf., I see what the remark was that made you lengthen the block, but consider that they spoke rashly, and weren't repeated afterward. Revert to the original block length--if DC continues to walk the same roads their next block will be much longer, and if they do, it doesn't matter whether they do so two weeks from now or four weeks from now. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Drmies makes a convincing argument that the block should be shortened to the original duration. In addition, the lengthened block does nothing more to prevent further disruption compared to the original one. wctaiwan (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly happy to wait until Fut. Perf's beauty sleep is a perfect preterite. Nothing will have been missed in the meantime, given the length of the first block. Sweet dreams everyone: Peyton Manning won again tonight, so all is still well with the world. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry to disagree with you, Doc. The block was ridiculous to begin with, and given that your fellow admin seems to be getting away with his unfair extension, this place is beginning to look more and more like a contemporary version of the Third Reich. Draco^E 03:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • And... time. Is that a Godwin's Law record? Someone check the books! --Jayron32 03:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

        Checked; the ban discussion for Dr.Mukesh111 was faster, but only barely. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

      • Cry Havoc!. John lilburne (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Hypocrisy, delusion, lies, pretence, deceit... Draco^E 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, Drmies is politely asking us to back off and let him handle it. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If a user is topic/interaction/etc. banned from discussing topic X, but administrators are discussing topic X with the user while they are blocked, how can a user respond to messages other than to violate the ban itself? The only response that doesn't violate the ban would be to not reply at all. It seems to me like that is what is happening, and we probably shouldn't extend blocks for violating a topic/interaction/etc. ban based on discussing the original block for the same ban. To comment on Delicious carbuncle directly, his quotes are not convincing of someone who is going to continue on after the block, so I don't see the need to tack on another two weeks. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Drmies was not discussing Prioryman with D.C. He was discussing D.C.'s decision to break his interaction ban. D.C. could very easily have responded to that without adding yet more accusations against the other party. And, as I'm sure I have pointed out before but people keep strangely overlooking, his first attack against Prioryman was not in response to any question of Drmies at all. That said, even if Drmies had asked a direct question regarding Prioryman, D.C. could easily have responded with "sorry, I can't comment on that without breaking the restriction again". It is a standard part of interaction bans that we expect people to exercise this amount of self-discipline; if we didn't, all interaction bans would be futile (any i-banned editor could get some friends to innocently "ask" them about their opponents on their talk page from time to time, giving them perfect opportunities to vent against them to their heart's content). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I wasn't saying that anyone should be able to respond to talk page messages from friends about it, that would violate the interaction ban and they should be blocked for that. I was saying rather, if they are blocked for an interaction ban and they are discussing the ban itself (whether they mention the user or not) it's unavoidable to be discussing the topic they were banned for and that itself violates the interaction ban: WP:IBAN - For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly. Emphasis mine. Like you said, I guess a refusal to comment is probably they best option, but.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• It says here: Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from. Drmies was in a dialogue with DC consistent with that purpose when FPAS interjected themselves into the situation by a block with the comment And since you are so willing to sit out blocks, indicating to me the block was punitive for engaging in a good faith discussion with Drmies. As Drmies had already replied to a mention of Prioryman without comment about that violating the ban, FPas's action has the gestalt of wheel war (I know it's not a technical violation). Blocks are supposed to be a last resort, and there were several actions FPas could have taken -- suggested to Drmies the conversation was inappropriate, restricted talk page access, for two. The fact that he has a prior history with DC also makes his intervention suspect.
• It's been pointed out above, in my opinion correctly, that DCs intentional, tactical decision to violate the ban to get an ANI lick in is reason to consider an indef block. That's a reasonable option (indef block until DC agrees to abide by interaction ban). But it didn't need to happen whilst Drmies and DC were in dialog. It didn't need to come from FPas, and that's not what happened. What happened was FPas saw an opportunity to punish DC for breaking the speech code and took it. Technically correct? Yes, DC said the P-word. Remembering that we're not supposed to be a bureucracy, appropriate in the context of the location and tenor of the discussion? No. Nobody Ent 13:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ent, I think that on the whole I agree with you, esp. the bureaucracy part. I see no harm in allowing a user like DC discussing a topic on their talk page when asked by an admin. Surely such leeway is allowed: "sorry I can't speak because I am not allowed to talk about this topic" is silly. I would like to hear DC say "I won't do it again anywhere" but that's probably too much to ask. I won't dispute the original block, but I continue to disagree with the extension, and hope that other admins will weigh in here. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"I won't dispute the original block, but I continue to disagree with the extension" pretty much sums it up perfectly for me. GiantSnowman 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Original Duration We should not punish an editor for breaking a topic ban when the offending edit is responsive to an administrator's question. The question should not be whether it was possible to respond without violating the iban, but whether the response in question was reasonably germane to the discussion the administrator initiated. Monty₈₄₅ 16:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Originally, the IBAN was set up to keep those two users apart - because they simply could not get on, and conversations between the two caused escalating drama. I think both of FPAS's blocks related to the IBAN (this extension, and his first block) were too over the top and more related to punishment than actually reducing drama (which is my totem for whether to block or not). Some extra context is needed too: part of the problem is that DC had identified Prioryman as a problem user to keep an eye on. In doing so he kept raising Prioryman's past behaviour and current issues in various venues. Prioryman and he fell out over that and from this their interactions escalated into abusing each other. I always told DC, in no uncertain terms, that he did not need to "watch" Prioryman, others were perfectly capable of doing that if it was warranted. In this case, though, he raises a couple of issues (ironically on his talk page, not in the AN/I thread - which was a ridiculous jibe) that seem to have been missed - most notably that in his unlock request r.e. his outing of another editor it appears he was already asking in March not to use their name. This is a very concerning issue which might need to be addressed (I don't know how, blocks not being punitive). What is also concerning is DC's stated acceptance of gaming the IBAN process (i.e. he will accept a block to say things about Prioryman). This, obviously, is not a good situation and I think that rather than a block escalation this time it merely be recorded, and made explicitly clear, that if this is his approach to the IBAN then the community approach to blocks will be to make them dramatically more expensive (I'd say next time: 3 month, 6 months, indef). --Errant ^(chat!) 16:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DC requested on their talk page that the following message be posted here. I have had no significant dealings with DC before and really don't know anything about this issue; I'm just doing this in response to a help-me template request. Zad68 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I hate to seem impatient, especially since I expect I will be staying blocked for the original term of two weeks, but I have no intention of sitting out a vindictive four week block made by an admin who seems to bear me ill will. Fut Perf extended a block because of a comment I made on my talk page in response to poking by Drmies. Fut Perf calls it "a gratuitous expression of hostility" but there is actually no hostility behind it. It is a confident prediction based on years of observing Wikipedia. Even if it were "hostile", blocked users are typically extended some leeway on their own talk pages. If Fut Perf's intention was to prevent me from invoking the name of the other party in the interaction ban, perhaps revoking talk page access would have been the correct course of action, but their block extension seems to be purely and gratuitously punitive. This is the second time they have blocked me under their flawed reading of the ban. The other block was soon undone. In both cases, Fut Perf blocked me and then claimed that they would be unable to discuss the block because they were going to bed. In this last case, I asked Fut Perf to raise a discussion of the block extension at WP:AN or WP:ANI. They replied that there was "no reason to". This is not the type of behaviour that we should expect from our admins. At this point, I'm just looking for the block extension to be reversed (I take it as a given that Fut Perf will refrain from using their tools in cases related to me). I have outlined why the original two week block may be overly harsh, but I understand that opinions may differ and, as I have said, I am prepared to sit it out. Anyone care to do the honours? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Interaction bans are fundamentally flawed solutions. If DC and PM choose to not interact with each other, then that's fine as that's their decision. If they interact in away that causes problems, then we should address these problems. This should work, because Wikipedia fundamentally is not a social medium. If I feel that editor X is not nice to me, then why would I bother? I'm not here to socialize with people, I'm here to contribute to articles and the Ref Desk. If editor X is saying things I don't like, I can simply ignore him. Count Iblis (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Second chance for User:Claritas?

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

---

User:Claritas has requested to be unblocked under the Standard offer (original request here), and has asked for it to be discussed here. At present, I personally take no position on the issue one way or the other, having not researched the situation leading up to the block; he does, however, appear to fulfil the requirements. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• While of course wanting to AGF, given the user's history, can we please get a CU to confirm that they have not socked for 6 months? GiantSnowman 12:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• (After some research) Support unblock. Unless a checkuser can show evidence to the contrary, there seems to have been no socking in the last six months, and Caritas has made assurances that there will be no future incidents. I'm willing to accept that, on the (self-evident) proviso that any future infractions will result in an indef-block and a very low chance of an unblock being considered. I'd also recommend (but not require) that Claritas spends a few months editing under the auspices of a mentor of his choice, who can help diffuse any emotive disputes that might threaten to flare up in the future. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• I would recommend reviewing the following before responding:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#Deletion of Transformers articles
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Claritas/Anthem of Joy
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#Unban proposal on User:Claritas
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234#Ban appeal from User:Claritas - BOZ (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• CU isn't turning anything up. Bear in mind that this user was still in High School when he started to be a pain in the situpon, and is now a university student, it is well within the bounds of possibility that he has grown up at last. Support the unblock with the mentorship idea though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Does he edit any other wiki projects? If so, that might provide extra evidence of improved behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Elen - one of the concepts in the Standard Offer is to show work elsewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

He has been active on Commons and Wikiversity. Judging by his behavior there, no, he has not grown up at last or in the least. In this Commons discussion (June 2012) he's a) lying about his past socking on Wikipedia and b) refusing another editor the courtesy that he is asking of us here (in fact he even states " I can be hypocritical if I want to" once he is called out on lying about his socks). In this Wikiversity thread (April 2012) he's being, well, basically a total jerk to someone simply because he can (" You weren't obliged to put this on Wikipedia" - yes, but the person would've failed a class if they hadn't, so it wasn't much of a "choice" as he well knows). Overall there's a pattern of "Please be nice to me, but I get to be abusive others if I want to" kind of mentality there (as he freely admits, it's hypocrisy).

I'm not going to formally oppose this because I do believe people deserve second chances (or is this his third?), but I feel very very sorry for whoever ends up as his mentor. Volunteer Marek  18:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No longer. The work somewhere else stuff was removed 7 months ago. Nobody Ent 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As an concession to the other projects who felt (not inaccurately) that "foisting" our problem editors on them as a matter of course was not conductive to anything positive. That said, there's no reason we can't take the existence of good work on another project as a good sign – it's just not cool to require it at the other projects' detriment.

(That said, the diff Volunteer Marek picked up are most certainly not good signs IMO). — Coren ^(talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support unban. Wikipedia needs editors. Nobody Ent 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban - as long as Claritas is willing to be mentored for a few months to get him back up to scratch. GiantSnowman 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support- because Claritas has not socked in the last six months and has given credible assurances that he won't in future. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This definitely isn't going to lead anywhere productive.--v/r - TP 14:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reyk, your contributions include this edit, which in the words of WP:BAN is "undermining or sabotage" of the encyclopedia to restore an edit of a banned editor.  Do you still think that what you personally believe to be "common sense" overrides the "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" that states, "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good."?  Given your absence of objection to Claritas/Anthem of Joy editing while banned at [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 89#AfD nominations and de jure WP:Banning_Policy], what difference does it make that Claritas has not socked for six months?  Claritas states, "I do now also recognize that sockpuppetry is always disruptive, and the "good-editing sockpuppet" can actually be far more problematic than an obvious vandal or troll."  Which is the superior viewpoint, your "common sense" approach, or Claritas' most recent statement?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Nice straw man you've set up. You've attempted to equate me wanting to keep closed AfDs closed with me undermining your personal misinterpretation of the banning policy before. That idea was laughed out of court, so I don't understand why you'd bring it up again. As for the other conversation you link to, nowhere do I say anything like what you're claiming. Too bad. Thanks for playing but, per WP:DNFTT, I will not be indulging you any further. Maybe you can amuse yourself with a solitaire round of "hunt the adjective" or something. Reyk YO! 04:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Claritas, so the edit summarized by the edit comment, "Sshh! What's that? Is it the sound of my mocking laughter?" is reasonably hatted.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I still do consider behaviour and actions on other Wikimedia projects as important. I am all in favour of second chances, but the recent lack of maturity found in the smattering of edits elsewhere (as shown by Volunter Marek) show me that Claritas is not quite ready to be a part of any such community. WP:OFFER isn't just about going away for awhile, it's about proving you understand why you were blocked/banned in the first place, and showing us the behaviours will not be repeated (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to say, if I were to be mentored, I can see myself working well with Worm That Turned. I regret being rude over at Commons and Wikiversity, but I have quality contributions to both projects, and never came under sanctions while I worked on them. I will make a serious effort not to repeat that sort of flippant behaviour over here.--Claritas § 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Copied from user:Claritas's talkpage
• weak oppose I'm a big fan of second chances, but A) socking like that is a pretty bright line and B) the problems identified by VM on other Wikimedia sites isn't encouraging. If allowed back, I'd certainly want a mentor. Worm would be fine if willing. I would also ideally like a 6 month ban from XfDs given past problems. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hobit, happy to have an indefinite self or community imposed ban on XfD participation. I'm here to write. Claritas § 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC) copied from User:Claritas's talkpage
• Support unban not giving users a chance to return after being blocked/banned gives them no incentive not to sock. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So banning is just a block with a different name?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unban - the editor's behavior on other projects undermines the credibility of his promise to alter his behavior here. He does not appear to have grown up at all. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban per Nathan Johnson and GiantSnowman.--v/r - TP 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban I believe in second chances and Claritas seem to have done some good work earlier. Looking at the Commons thread linked to upthread I was actually more concerned by Volunteer Marek´s behaviour than Claritas´s as I thought Marek unnessecarily brought up previous sock issue. Claritas also answers well over at his talk page. w/r Iselilja (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support second chance. Editor has hopefully matured in the intervening time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Worth a try. Easy enough to gauge his maturity in action - easier than it is here in discussion. Easy enough to get rid again if necessary. Peridon (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Having looked into the situation, I'm happy this user appears to have grown up a bit in the past two years. It's not difficult to re-block if they start playing up. Unfortunately, whilst I would be happy to mentor this user under different circumstances, I'm not in a position to take on more users at the moment. I would recommend a mentor, though I would believe that passive mentoring should be sufficient, watching their talk page and discussing issues with Claritas. Worm^TT(talk) 14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unban - Productive content creator. I offered to mentor earlier in an attempt to deter banning the editor in the first place. I'm still willing to do that if deemed essential, but I can't imagine that it is necessary. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As I understand what's said, this person is just 15 or so. We have no deadline and so there will be plenty of time for them to contribute when they are an adult. Also, their user page indicates that they wanted Jack Merridew as a mentor and that's not a good sign. Warden (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support – as Peridon says, it's easy enough to undo later if it turns out to be a bad idea. 28bytes (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban if user agrees to mentoring. AutomaticStrikeout 20:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 scheduled to close

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election RFC, which will govern the conduct of the election, is eligible to begin closing any time on or after November 1, or about 9 hours from now. We could use a number of uninvolved closers to assess consensus, both for individual issues, and finally for the whole RFC. One closer need not close all the issues in the RFC. The earliest proposal has nominations starting on November 11th, so please consider closing the issues that will be germane to the schedule and nominations as promptly as possible. Monty₈₄₅ 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

All parts have been closed and summarized.--v/r - TP 19:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons bug, not applicable for enwp

Original section title: Please cease all deletions at this time

Resolved

 – not affecting enwp Nobody Ent 11:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

A bug has been discovered that is causing the histories of deleted files to disappear. At this time it is unknown what is causing the bug, what other projects the bug effects, or if the data can be recovered at a later point. Because of this, I advise that we cease all deletions for any reason (except for things that need to be Oversighted), and place a Sitenotice up warning admins to stop deleting pages at this time. I believe that the magnitude of possible damage warrants this level of response. The adminneeded tag is for the sitenotice. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this file namespace only? --Rschen7754 05:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sven, can you explain to me why missing file history is a problem worthy of a site notice and ceasing to delete files that violate US copyright law? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and put in the notice, but any admin can feel free to revert if the problem is resolved or it is determined to not affect enwp. --Rschen7754 05:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd more object that you've told any admin not to ever delete anything ever until told otherwise when it affects the file namespace, and that you've done so in a way that pings every single user ;p. I've emailed the internal engineering list essentially telling them we need this fixed doublequickfast. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Did my edit test, and this is file namespace only. --Rschen7754 05:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just informed by Engineering that this code is not live on enwiki. Sven, please be sure to verify things before making apocalyptic notices :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

All my tests work; just uploaded an image, deleted, restored, and everything's fine. It's only on Commons. Removed sitenotice. --Rschen7754 05:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Being that I'm not an admin on this project, I would have no way of testing it. Being that I can't code for shit, I would have no way of seeing if WP had the same issue or not. I was very clear above that I wasn't 100% on it being on English Wikipedia, when I said "At this time it is unknown what is causing the bug, what other projects the bug effects, or if the data can be recovered at a later point." I think that the response here was perfect: deletions were stopped until the situation could be tested, at which point the messenger was shot for time-wasting. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is Wikipedia, where no good deed goes unpunished and anything you say will be used against you, sooner or later. Since Dmca#Title_II:_Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act provides WMF really good protection, concerns about copyright law for the short amount of time really are overwrought. Of course, had the bug been real and Sven had not said anything we could sit around this morning in 20/20 hindsight discussing his failings for not doing so. In any event, Sven didn't post the site notice, Rschen7754 did, we can throw them under the bus instead if a sacrificial victim is required. Sven, don't worry about it. Nobody Ent 13:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nobody Ent. I think Ironholds and I have a good enough working relationship that neither of us really came away hard done by this conversation. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I went to check an edit on my watchlist, Girolamo Masini

and discovered that a date had been changed from "December 11" to "11 December". or something. I undid it, wrote a note to User talk:Toadally relaxt and discovered that he (she? I doubt it) had been warned about not doing this in 2008 and then again a few times, and it appears to me that he has made a bunch of these edits and someone might want to look at the situation. Thanks Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the subject was Italian, wouldn't it make more sense to use the same method Italy uses? I don't see this as something that requires any sort of action, given that it was done in good-faith, and given the specific article I'm inclined to agree with the other editor, though it should be discussed on the talk page. - SudoGhost 13:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I reverted a bunch of these changes, then looked at the history of one and discovered that it was written European style to begin with. So perhaps I just jumped into the middle of some cultural war and made it worse. Oh well. as I recall I wrote the article about the Italian gent and am inclined to keep it the way it was written. Carptrash (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think all dates on the English Wikipedia should follow the same format, period. This has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And what (whose?) format would you suggest? I think that the "first-come-first-served" method, as inconsistent is it is, is the way to go. Support diversity and all that sort of thing. Carptrash (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting everyone to agree on one formatting would be nice, but one variation of English anything preferred over another will lead to a cultural fistfight. Americans will either be forced to eat yoghurt or the British would be forced to fill their tanks with gasoline, in their minds. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bwilkins - would you suggest American or British? ENGVAR works well. Carptrash - the 'first come first served' argument is ridiculous, and completely defeats the point of Wikipedia. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

to the unsigned comment, which point of wikipedia might that be, or is there only one? Carptrash (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said - this has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR ... a date format is not a spelling, it's a customary format. (We all know that yoghurt is spelled yoghurt :-) ). That's why I said dates are not in my opinion an ENGVAR situation. Besides, as Italy is not a primarily English-speaking country, ENGVAR wouldn't apply anyway ;-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are the one who brought up ENGVAR , just to say that it does not apply. An interesting approach. I have always been of the belief (on wikipedia and most everywhere else) that the person who does the work gets to make these decisions. That is what I mean by the "first-come-first-served" method. I'll stand by that. Carptrash (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, WP:CONSENSUS rules :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If only Wikipedia had a policy or guideline that covered this... WP:DATEFORMAT. Seriously guys. Disagree with it if you want, but over there. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As a United Statesian, I can't see a problem with simply using the "2 November 2012" format. We are clever enough to translate this to "November 2, 2012," and that way the benighted rest of the planet will be able to understand what date is referred to. This seems like a nonissue, orders of magnitude less contentious than "corn" versus "maize." Edison (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Iluvrihanna24: Standard Offer Request

Per WP:UTRS Request #4500, 82.24.227.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has requested the standard offer. I do not know anything about this case, so I am deferring it to AN. It does appear that six months have passed since the block was instated. The following is his request, which he agreed to be posted here:

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I believe I should be unblocked because I have already learnt my lesson. I have matured a lot over the many months I have been blocked and just want to start new and forget all of my old accounts. I have been observing editors whilst I have been blocked and know exactly what is accepted and what is not anymore. Although my block is another 6 months away, I would really liked to be unblocked now as I know I have learnt my lesson now and am just frustrated that I cannot correct certain pages. I know you may just think that I am being impatient but I have been waiting many many months and believe I have served my punishment time. Thanks.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Mainly music articles but any articles with mistakes such as grammar and non-up-to-date information.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Please unblock me, like I said I have matured extremely over my block period and really want another chance to prove myself. I will not constantly edit articles like before but just want to be able to edit some articles here and there. Thanks.

Reply message:

I would like to request a Standard offer if I may. I'm not sure where to find an administrator but I have read the rules clearly and as I said before I would like to move forward with my contributions to Wikipedia in a positive way for the future. I have waited almost 15 months for my lengthy block to expire and I know I have learnt my lesson and just want to move forward if I am given the chance. Thank you for your time.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So basically this means that Iluvrihanna24 is requesting an unblock? Or am I misunderstanding something? Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have updated the header to make that more clear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• First, this is clearly not a WP:CLEANSTART. They are either a) unblocked and used that account, b) unblock and the account can go through rename, or c) she is unblocked and permitted to create a new account, with proper permanent linkage to the old account. Second, have we verified they have not socked/evaded in the months since the block. Third, I see no real explanation of how they will avoid the behaviour that led to the block - what will really be different? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps their talk page access should be restored so they can reply? Nobody Ent 18:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have modified their block to allow them to post to this thread. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The last cycle with Iluvrihanna24 was actually as PhoenixJHudson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was unblocked with some fairly strict editing restrictions. He proved quickly unable to abide by them and was reblocked quickly (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhoenixJHudson&oldid=486670745). I'd support an unblock under the same restrictions as before. Iluvrihanna24's real problem is the addition of massive piles of gushing details and edit warring when people try to trim it back. His restriction was specifically tailored to that, in that he was forbidden to restore material that he had added and another editor had removed. In fairness to him, he wound up with major problems dealing with Calvin999, who has since been dealt a few blocks for edit warring. If we unblock Iluvrihanna24 with that restriction again, we will need to be vigilant to ensure that other Rihanna fans don't abuse him.

I am a bit disheartened that his unblock request doesn't acknowledge the existence of PhoenixJHudson, but it was 6 months and 3 weeks since that account edited.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'll conditionally support an unblock pending a checkuser to check for sock activity in the last 6 months. Assuming no socks, I'd support unblock with no restrictions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Given his history of edit warring and sock puppeting, I think unblocking him with no restrictions would be foolhardy.—Kww(talk) 07:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I have been allowed to give my opinion here now. I am glad that people are seeing my point about the user Calvin999 as that was a very big factor in my comments made before towards him as he reverted every edit I made which became extremely annoying. I did forget about my different identity's block periods but as kww stated the minimum it has been is almost 7 months which I believe is a very long time to have thought about my mistakes. As I have previously stated, if I was unblocked, I am not going to edit large chunks of information, all I would like to be able to do is correct certain parts of information that have bad grammar or have non-up-to-date information if I could. Thanks for your time. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my comments are seen here or not, are they coming through? Sorry. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are visible to everyone.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'm trying not to be persistent. I know all of the users here are holding the cards, I am just wondering how long this decision will take. As I said I am really not meaning to nag, it's just I've given my opinion and promise of what I will do if I am unblocked and would appreciate a reply considering your decision. Does there have to be a mutual decision between users? I've given all I can give to persuade you. Thanks. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed I am allowed to edit articles now without logging in. Last time my block ran out and I began editing again, users didn't believe me and I got blocked again even though my ban had expired. I am notifying you now to say that it is allowing me to edit, so to show you I have changed I will edit only a few articles. Please don't view this as me violating my block as earlier I was blocked from editing by my IP address and now it is letting me. I am only doing what I have been wanting to for several months. Thanks. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not letting me edit anymore as it says there is a filter saying my edits are unconstructive. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no Don't edit articles yet. You were only unblocked to post here and on your talk page User talk:82.24.227.215. The decision might take a day or two. Nobody Ent 23:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've was reinstating the block while Nobody Ent was responding here. I'll copy any of Iluvrihanna24's edits to this discussion if needed. It is this kind of thing that makes me extremely hesitant to unblock without an extremely short leash: an eagerness to change things while not apparently reading fairly simple statements directed at him.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Note as well that despite it being explained to him multiple times, he never has accepted that he is not supposed to edit while his account is blocked.—Kww(talk) 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think 82 needed to be blocked ... 82 didn't actually edit any articles and I think King of Hearts set up a filter Special:AbuseFilter/201 to prevent him from editing anywhere but here or there. Nobody Ent 03:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No details per WP:BEANS, but the filter doesn't block everything that a block does. Filter 201 does show that he tried to edit.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't go so far as oppose an unblock, but I've striken my support. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional support The impression I'm getting from 82 is much more of lack of understanding rather than malice. If and only if they were willing to take a mentor and a volunteer could be found would it make sense to unblock. Nobody Ent 13:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• In reply to this comment made on the AN page, I am definitely willing to take on a mentor or volunteer if that is what it takes to be unblocked, definitely. Thanks. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of an objection, I'll unblock with conditions similar to those I imposed last time (with some clarification based on the last go around):

1. Only the Iluvrihanna24 account will be unblocked.
2. No alternate accounts, and no anonymous editing.
3. Cannot restore any material that he has added and another editor has removed. This includes material added in the past by any sockpuppet accounts.
4. All additions of material must include inline citations to reliable sources.
5. Violations will result in a one-week block on the first occurrence, a one-month block on the second, and returned to an indefinite block on the third.

I'll do this on Nov 8 unless someone says not to before then. I'll set the block on 82.24.227.215 back to a soft-block at that time.—Kww(talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) —Kww(talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Article deletion request

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

---

Moved to AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Lynn Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Dawn French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if I should be posting this here, so apologies, but I've just picked up this message in the last few minutes, in which Parsons expresses concern about the accuracy of her article. Apparently she and French plan to undertake some editing of their pages to correct errors. I slipped up with Parsons, believing her anonymous account to be someone engaging in vandalism (see this reply), though I believe it is her. Anyway, she has requested her page's deletion. I'm waiting for her to confirm this, but as she's not overly notable I'm inclined to think I should go ahead with the request. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree. I think this is one of those cases where we can honor a subject's request and not feel like we're missing something that definitely should be in a complete encyclopedia. Send to AfD.--v/r - TP 20:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ok, give me a few minutes to set everything up. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion now open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Parsons. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

RevDel and page move vandalism

Yo. I've only recently started getting to grips with RevDel, and I have a question - how does it work with page move revisions? Say that a vandal moved "User:Example" to "User:[Extremely offensive statement about user]", and that move then got reverted; resulting in two revision history entries featuring that offensive statement, which should be hidden. The comparison of RevDel with Oversight mentions that using RevDel "the page should be moved to an innocuous title and then the original page name suppressed in the move log", but it's not clear to me whether it's saying that that's a function of RevDel that's only available to Oversighters. Certainly, I'm only seeing the options to delete revision text, edit summary and editor's username/IP, none of which might contain the material in need of suppression. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, either. I had wondered about something like this. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The footnote referred to in the table isn't clear to me, either. "Neither Oversight nor RevDel can fully suppress (including mention of existence) the only or most recent revision of a page. As neither can act on the last visible revision, neither can suppress a page title directly. Both Oversight and RevisionDelete can suppress deleted revisions if the page is deleted first." Peridon (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You may need to delete the page and then restore all the revisions except the offending ones. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are we talking about suppressing the page title itself, or the move log? I'm pretty sure an oversighter is needed for the logs, and if there is a libel issue involved all record of it should be suppressed, even if already revdeleted, so it may be best to just send the specifics to the OS team using any of the methods described at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

My earlier wondering was about page title, and I think Hex's thoughts are that way too. I've just been seeing if I could find a way of editing that log, and can't see one. Can oversighters suppress page titles, or is that a 'developer' thing only? I can't see the point of that spiel about moving the page being in the RevDel column - and it says in the OS column that it's not available in OS - and the footnote is unhelpful. I'm hoping WP:BEANS isn't going to come into play here, as I've not come across a move of the type under discussion. Yet. Well, I deleted a redirect today that was an attack but I wouldn't think it worth total suppression as I've seen it used elsewhere in a Google search. Peridon (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If the only problem is that the last entry can't be revdel'd then make a minor edit, then revedel. Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC).

One cannot revdelete the latest revision of a page, that's true, but one can revdelete its edit summary and the name of the editor who made it. So, if a page is moved to an offensive title, the admin who catches it should move it back and, then, revdelete the two edit summaries which go "so and so moved page..." and the two log entries. Oversighters, proceeding like this, can also suppress said edit summaries and log entries. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But what if the moved-to title is xxxxx's mother only charges $5 for yyyy? That will still appear in the move log, no matter what you do to the edit log. Peridon (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict there - I was agreeing with RF. But I can't see a way of RevDeling the log. So it IS an OS thing. Peridon (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the log entry can be revdeleted or suppressed, if it's needed, see the latest log entry here. (Or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ARevisionDelete&target=Special%3ALog&type=logging&ids%5B45629059%5D=1, which is admin only) Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

But I can still see the titles... On yours and one I did earlier myself. I might be missing something here... Peridon (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now I get it. It's the "Show/hide selected log entries" button on Special:Log. The problem I'm encountering here is that Wikipedia:Revision deletion is out of date; it doesn't mention that. I'll edit it to accurately describe the different interfaces for history and logs. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to delete the entries in the page history for the original title and the offending one AND the move log. Check User:Elen of the Roads/sandbox with different silly name. I moved /sandbox to User:Elen of the Roads/sandbox with silly name then moved it to /sandbox with different silly name. I then went into both the page history and the move log on different silly name and revdeleted the edit summary for the action (that's the only bit you need to delete). I also deleted /sandbox with silly name. You should (I hope) not now be able to find a trace of /sandbox with silly name. Check Special:Contributions/Elen_of_the_Roads Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC) NB, you'd also need to revdel the edit summary on the deletion log to get rid of the name entirely, but that's less important as it won't appear on page histories. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll sleep on it now and have a play in the morning when I'm more awake. Peridon (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

AHA. Elen - I wasn't realizing that edit summaries for moves were just normal edit summaries with the details of the move in them; for some reason I'd thought that they were more like log entries. Of course, they can be suppressed like normal. Lightbulb on! I'll also include a note in my change to the RevDel page that removing one won't remove the other. My thanks to you and Salvio for clearing this up. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the thing, even though they are automatically created the log just treats them as edit summaries, and you need to clear them from the logs and the page history. Glad to be of help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Iantresman

By a vote of 7-4, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [28] is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Lord Roem (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Could another administrator please review the closing of Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Formal edit proposal by Sandstein[29]. Although by my count the vote was 9 to 5 for the edit, the administrator determined that there was "no consensus". The article has been locked for over a year. TFD (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

9-5 means no consensus for the change in my book, although this is WP:NOTAVOTE, so "majority" doesn't matter - strength of arguments does (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Plus 2 of the support comments attracted opposition from other supporters. No consensus seems reasonable. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, I am not sure vote count is in compliance with WP:DEMOCRACY. What we have here is the following. The text that has been a subject of the dispute is supported by the source, which is explicitly and seriously challenged by at least another reliable secondary source. In that situation, this information cannot be presented as a statement of fact per our core content policy(WP:NPOV). The opponents of this proposal were requested to provide the evidence that the source that challenges this statement is unreliable, fringe, or seriously contested. However, no such information have been provided. Instead, those users built their arguments based on another content policy, WP:V, although this policy explicitly prohibits that. In that situation, any uninvolved admin has no other choice but to fulfill the edit request, because that existing text violates our policy clearly and unequivocally, and no local consensus can override the requirements of our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION should be renamed to "in before the (indefinite) lock/protection". Tijfo098 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I would note User:Collect/Collect's Law regarding verbiage on the topic. The rule requiring consensus was, in fact, favoured by Paul in the past, and so I suspect he reasonably ought to abide by it. Collect (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus implies respecting Wikipedia's norms. When local consensus violates some policy, references to consensus are senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein did not provide any comment on "strength of arguments". TFD (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

While the specific closure of "no consensus" is reasonable, the underlying problem of NPOV remains. I notice even the "opposers" do not support the current estimate, they largely just want some estimate included. The current "mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million" does look non-neutral. Probably the editors should try to work out what a reasonable range is, and then try a new RFC. I am not sure this is the best board to discuss the old or the new RFC. Churn and change (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein did explain their reasoning on their talk page. In order for the RFC process to work reasonably well, closes should not be overturned unless they are obviously off or there's evidence of involvement by the closer. Lacking either of these conditions, forum shopping closes to noticeboards should be strongly discouraged; otherwise many closes someone disagrees with will be dragged here. Nobody Ent 18:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein wrote, "Consensus means a reasonably broad agreement", and "did not provide any comment on "strength of arguments"". "Forum shopping" means bringing original disputes to different fora, not asking people to review decisions. TFD (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, the information on the number of deaths in the lede is not presented as a statement of fact, but as an estimated range. Now a proposal was made that the way forward was to write up an estimates section using a wider range of sources then to update the lede to reflect that. But apparently those wanting outright removal of this estimate would seemingly rather write yards and yards of text on the article talkpage arguing for its removal and forum shop at various venues such as AN and badgering the closing admin on his talkpage[30], rather than write a simple paragraph or two in composing an "Estimates" section. Go figure. --Nug (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. The information on the range of estimates is a statement. It is this concrete statement (about the range of estimates) which has been contested by at least one reliable source. In that sense, there is no difference between "it has been estimated that X killed 100 people" and "X killed 100 people": if each of these two statements have been contested, both of them cannot be presented in this form, and the word "estimate" is irrelevant to that.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes it is a statement that factually represents a reliably sourced estimate. No, an "estimate" is a tentative evaluation or rough calculation, a judgment based on one's impressions or opinion. --Nug (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely a difference between "estimates range from x to y people died" and a statement in Wikipedia's voice "x to y people died." The first represents a statement of what the range of opinions is as to the range, the second asserts the accuracy of the range. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct. However, another source says this estimate was wrong. In other words, we have two statements: the statement A is "estimates range from x to y people died", and the statement B is "the statement A is wrong".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Any tentative evaluation or rough calculation is likely to be wrong, that is why it is called an "estimation". --Nug (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The factual statement is the "estimated death toll number[s] between 85 and 100 million." That estimate was made by Courtois and is not representative of mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Then write up an "Estimates" section in order to reflect the range of estimates found in "mainstream scholarship". --Nug (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? TFD (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not? --Nug (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I already proposed the text, which you totally ignored. Who can guarantee that the draft of the "Estimate" section will not be ignored too?

Secondly, the idea that Communist mass killing is a mainstream concept has not been proven by you. Indeed, many single society studies exist that provide quite different figures for each concrete country, and that define the subject quite differently. By merely giving a range you leave these studies beyond the scope, which is against our NPOV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is required to "prove" anything at all. Wikipedia uses what reliable sources state, and cites claims to those sources. Nowhere does any policy say "editors must prove what the reliable sources state." Cheers. Read WP:V and WP:RS to verify my claims on that point <g>. Collect (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The references to WP:V and WP:NOR are inappropriate in the dispute about WP:NPOV. This policy says that Wkipedia uses what reliable says " fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". I provided a proof that there is a bias: some seriously contested opinion has been represented as a fact. You responded with references to WP:V and WP:NOR, although all three our core policies prohibit to use them separately from other two. That you mistake has already been explained to you many times. I find your behaviour disruptive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, are you sure you are addressing the right person? I don't recall you proposing some text to me. If you are so knowledgeable about the various studies why don't you write up a brief section, surely must be easier than the tens of thousands of words devoted to argument over removal (which are being ignored in any case), at least that would be a starting point. --Nug (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I proposed it twice on the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you are prepared to write tens of thousands of words in repeating the same argument over and over again on why this reliably sourced text should be removed despite the fact that your arguments are being ignored, yet feel discouraged to write a hundred words for a section on "estimates" because your twice proposed text was overlooked? --Nug (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"Nug", you asked me to do something and I asked why, to which you replied "why not". Your reply shows that you seem more interested in argumentation than in constructive discussion. The reason "why not" is that the onus for finding sources for facts one wishes to enter rests on those who wish to enter those facts, not on other editors. TFD (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your response indicates that you don't seem to think we are here to build an encyclopedia. --Nug (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? I ask "why", you reply "why not", I explain why and you provide a link to an essay. TFD (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The users who are opposed to the edit have repeatedly asked other editors to write a new section for the article before proposing any changes to the lede. Are those users willing to contribute in the writing of the new section? -- Amerul (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep for UFC 155

Resolved

 – clearly does not qualify for speedy keeping or non administrative closing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the AfD for UFC 155 qualifies for a Speedy Keep per Reason #2 in WP:SK but also because of WP:SNOWBALL. However, I'm not certain if this is non-admin closure procedure. Could someone please answer this question for me? I'd like to know before taking any action. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 02:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, regardless, you shouldn't be closing the AfD because you've taken part. It should be closed by someone uninvolved, particularly if it's a NAC.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it rises to the level where Speedy Keep reason 2 applies; as for snow, after your above request, 2 delete votes were made. 7 to 2 is maybe still snow territory, however as the delete votes came after all the keep votes, we really need to wait and see how the discussion develops. Monty₈₄₅ 05:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion, and definitely not speedy anything territory, nor NAC territory either IMO. Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Slotermeer blacklisted article title?

I was trying to move Slotermeer (tuinstad) to Slotermeer, and I got:

This page-move has been blocked by the title blacklist because the new title contains characters, words, or phrases commonly used in page-move vandalism. If you think this has been done in error please leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Is it because it looks like "Slut"? Anyway there is only one Slotermeer and so this should be unblocked.Keizers (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I got no such message, don't know why you did, but the page move is  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that those messages aren't shown to admins. RJFJR (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I just tested it with my non-admin account, and I got the blacklist message; yeah, administrators can override it so we don't get that message. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be a block on "RMEE", as part of the hagger vandalisms. Though it looks like it would require a ' in front. --Golbez (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Monovia article

Resolved

 – no reason given for early closing, AFD will run the usual 7 days. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm user:Libertasgov, and I'm requesting that the Deletion discussion for Monovia be brought to a close. I trust your descion will be wise. I'm sorry If I didn't put this in the right place, I'm not very experienced here. 90.219.51.197 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to wait for the discussion to run for seven days, after which an administrator will close the discussion.  Sandstein  20:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal: Pé de Chinelo

Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using sockpuppets and IPs from Brazil to continually disrupt Wikipedia since being indef blocked in 2010 by adding false information into various film articles. This user's name has popped up on WT:FILM numerous times as well as WP:SPI. More information for the sockpuppet investigations can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo/Archive and more evidence can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Vandalism_by_201.19.*.*. As of now, Pe de Chinelo has created 121 suspected sockpuppets (most of them IPs) and 14 confirmed sock puppets. Much of the work done by Pe de Chinelo was cleaned up by regular project members MarnetteD (talk · contribs), Lambiam (talk · contribs), Hydrox (talk · contribs) and TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs), as well as Sjones23 (talk · contribs) (that's me, by the way).

He has also continually attacked Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) ([31], [32], [33], [34]). If those attacks are not called harassment, what else would it be called?

More recent disruption by Pé de Chinelo occurred at Sucker Punch (film) ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39]). His disruption has caused serious trouble to Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to propose an indefinite community ban of Pé de Chinelo to reduce the disruption by this user.

• Support as proposer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - oh that just blows. One-twenty-one suspected socks and 14 confirmed socks, not to mention bashing other editors? Pe de Chinelo, get lost. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support The IP socks might be much higher as there was a time when they weren't getting tagged. This person has edited disruptively for years and this ban is overdue. MarnetteD | Talk 03:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Waste of time. He's de facto banned, as his account is indefinitely blocked and no sane admin would unblock him. All editors are fully empowered to revert every single edit he makes. The sole difference between a de facto ban and a de jure ban is that no admin could unblock him in the presence of a de jure ban, and there's no risk of that happening.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support always smartest to dot your i's and cross your t's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Waste of time per Kww and WP:BURO. Nobody Ent 12:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• While I agree that the distinction is academic at this point, since the discussion is being had it I support banning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of why non-admins should not be making closes at the admin boards. This was closed as "de facto banned already", and bizarrely "WP:SNOW". We know he's de facto-banned. The request is for a formal ban. WP:SNOW is absurd here; two editors have opined that this is a waste of time, while others support the measure. How in the name of anything that's reasonable can WP:SNOW be invoked? This discussion was supposed to determine whether the de facto ban is sufficient, or if a full site-ban should be enacted formally. BWilkins' point about dotting i's and crossing t's makes sense. It may in fact be a waste of time, per Kww, but the decision was made far too hastily. This should be reopened and given a proper admin-close. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Undid close. --Rschen7754 02:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank for doing that. I would prefer that we let this play out play out properly waste of time or not. In the past I have seen editors blocked for reverting a blocked editor by admins who were not aware of a de facto ban. MarnetteD | Talk 02:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Since he's defacto banned, I created an entry for him in WP:BANNED. I'm afraid I may have been premature doing that now though...--Rockstonetalk to me! 04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• To be clear, I don't oppose entering him as formally banned. I just get confused as to what people think they gain.—Kww(talk) 04:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• What people gain is a free pass to declare obvious sock is obvious (or WP:QUACK) and revert edits of a newish editor whose contribution resembles that of the banned editor. Nobody Ent 13:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• They have that without a ban. All they have to do is tag the sockpuppet, and they are exempt from WP:3RR. All the offending sockpuppeteer needs to be is blocked, not banned, and all editors are free to revert any edit made in defiance of the block. There's a mythology of the power of a ban that simply isn't supported by policy.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• true, didn't realize that. So I guess the only point is someone gets to put a badge of shame on their talk page. Nobody Ent 16:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• The time the difference is important is when admins can't agree about the block. A case like ScienceApologist, where one faction of admins would block and another would unblock, is a case where a formal ban brings stability. De facto bans can't occur in a case like that because you can never reach the state where no admin is willing to unblock.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support w/e time to put a ring on it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bans are pointless and we should we more welcoming and less bitey. - John Galt ✉ 07:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You are kidding right. Bans are not useless as the allow reversion of edits on sight with out fear of an edit war block. What, pray tell, is bitey about banning someone who has vandalized articles and personally attacked other editors for years. Some of this person vandalism sat in the articles for months. You may feel that is worth welcoming. I do not. MarnetteD | Talk 12:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - what everyone else said. GiantSnowman 13:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support – Who cares if it's pointless? Who cares if it's a waste of time? Aren't serial sockmasters supposed to be banned? Bans are not pointless and as far as I'm concerned, we should strive to make serial sockmasters feel very bitten and very unwelcome. After all, if the user is blocked, why should we want them to feel welcome? AutomaticStrikeout 16:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Per supports above. Sockmasters need to be discouraged in every possible way. Jusdafax 05:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Waste of time per Kww. People need to cease creating ban discussions that don't change anything. This person would be reverted and blocked every time they showed up at Wikipedia even without this discussion. So the discussion is pointless. Ban discussions are useful in situations where the community wishes to change how an editor is treated. This will not do that, so is a waste of time. --Jayron32 05:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Waste of time per Kww et al. As the asinine non-admin who closed this before, I'd like to set you straight now. What makes you think Pé de Chinelo will stop whether his user page says he is blocked or whether he is banned? Pé de Chinelo is de facto banned because anything he does will immediately be reverted because he is nothing but a disruptive sockpuppeteer who is not here to help the project. Banning takes place because the community as a whole decides that because of an editors behavior, any useful contributions that they may provide are not worth the time and headache of dealing with them anymore. Pé de Chinelo was never that user, never will be, and he doesn't need to be banned for you to revert him, since he'll be reverted anyways. Consensus here supports a ban or thinks its a waste of time as they are not welcome here anymore anyways. If you, Joefromrandb (or anyone else), think that there is going to be consensus otherwise, then you're out of your mind. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Where would you possibly get the idea that I think it will end in any way other than one of the two you mentioned? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do people keep talking about this being a waste of time? If you are so concerned about your time, then don't bother with this and leave it to the interested editors. I don't see why we should not formally ban serial sockmasters and since the consensus is in favor of doing so, I would hope that an admin will soon take appropriate action. AutomaticStrikeout 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It churns the AN watchlist and the section header is indistinguishable from the not waste of time discussions. Nobody Ent 22:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish you would have at least read what I said, maybe you had understood. :/ If you don't read anything else other than this, just understand: Serial sockpuppeteers do not care whether they are blocked, banned, or anything on Wikipedia. Assuming it is closed right now, tagged as banned and given an entry on the list of banned editors, nothing changes. Pé de Chinelo isn't going to say "well, shucks" and not bother those articles anymore. He has over a hundred suspected sockpuppets and IPs used, so it's clear he doesn't care about any measure we take against him, and no one is willing to give him another chance. It's a waste of time because no one is going to, in good faith, say "Pé de Chinelo should be unblocked." Everyone here agrees Pé de Chinelo is not a good editor, and I'm not saying he shouldn't be banned, but being banned makes no difference. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

See how this works? You get to state your opinion and have your voice heard alongside those of your fellow editors, some of whom have a slight disagreement with your stance. Eventually an admin will come along and weigh all the arguments (including yours!!), make a decision and close the thread. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - A couple of the "waste of time" mindset here have tried (unsuccessfully) to amend our banning policy page to conform to their view that an indefinite block = a de facto community ban. Until the pages on blocking policy and banning policy are merged, they are two separate things. A community ban is not a "waste of time" until it is made defunct. Open a RfC on whether or not to do away with community bans. It's annoying and pointless to bring up the same old indef=de factoed argument, whatever the particular case may be. There are always admins out there who will surprise you and unblock a user that would have normally been banned by the community. That's why these discussions take place. The idea that the worse a user is means it's less likely that any admin would ever unblock them seems to me like saying "We don't need community bans at all". But that is for the community to decide. Doc talk 07:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• ? So your rationale behind having a ban discussion is that administrators are complete nincompoops? I would hope administrators would at least see the two blue link categories of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets, see the hundred entries and tell him to fuck off with the unblock request. If they don't, they need to have their tools removed and their head examined. Why not just close this and tag his page as banned? No one is going to dispute that he's unwelcome. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, Doc, that's not a very fair assessment of what I'm saying. Currently policy is pretty explicit: while the indefinite block is in place, a block and a ban are identical in terms of removing edits. The key difference is how the blocks are undone. Any admin can remove the block on any indefinitely-blocked editor as a unilateral move, based on his own personal judgment that it's a reasonable thing to do. I'll do that tomorrow on Iluvrihanna24, for example (see the discussion later in the page). To undo the block on a formally banned editor, you need to get a consensus that the unblocking is a good idea, and no single admin can do it. Formal bans serve a very good purpose, but long-term vandals that no admin would touch aren't it.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Recommend blocking user bgwhite due to vandalism

The user User:Bgwhite is deleting pages without discussion on the talk page. Several editors have objected to these actions and have reverted the possible vandalism (for example, Robert L. Hite). Recommend blocking this user. Edgerider221 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Diffs please. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Elockid is right. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard E. Cole appears to be (at least part of?) the precedent. It is not vandalism to carry out the consensus determined by the closer of a discussion. It is unacceptable edit-warring to undo that without getting a new consensus from a similarly public discussion (either with new evidence on the merits or with evidence that the previous discussion closure was not proper), and until then, the old consensus would stand. Perhaps visit Wikipedia:Deletion review? DMacks (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect. GB fan 03:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to change the definition of "vandalism" to "any edit in which another user disagrees with". --MuZemike 04:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Change? Isn't that already a fairly common definition, at least in the minds of hoards of edit-warriors on the cusp of getting blocked? DMacks (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's one of the current definitions Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#vandalism Nobody Ent 11:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Birdreader4310 just popped up to carry on the crusade. Indeffed and reverted. The previous two were blocked as being in a known sock-drawer, I'll update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biciklista10 after lunch if nobody else gets a round to it. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find the AFD discussion, and it is not linked on the talk page (which is odd). Could someone please point it out. I hate to say it, but if we can't link to the discussion, the page should not be blanked or redirected. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard E. Cole does not discuss this particular article (even in passing), and it passes WP:GNG. --Nouniquenames 16:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The accounts in question are doing this with the Cole article itself, so they are explicitly against that direct consensus and sock-blockable solely for that. Their behavior there is part of a pattern on a bunch of related articles that some editors think fall into the same category (and they at least appear to on their face) and others such as yourself do not. That's fine, and you're welcome to use normal WP:DR to resolve that. Once the socks started appearing and edit-warring, they are all treated together as an abusive editor and I don't give any mind to the content of their edits, and others do seem to make valid points about the similarity of the other articles. Again, well-behaved editors are welcome to discuss and come to consensus about content issues. DMacks (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking solely of Robert L. Hite, as it was blanked to a redirect without discussion, would it be acceptable for me to restore it and immediately take it to AfD (as a matter of procedure, not necessarily advocating deletion), or must it go through DRV? I ask to avoid the possibility of edit warring. --Nouniquenames 05:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A legitimate editor who thinks the article could exist on its own, and the article was not mentioned in an AfD? Normal discussion is sufficient in my view. You might start by first putting together some evidence on the article's talkpage to support WP:BIO or whatever notability, then you would not be seen as simply revert-warring, but rather bringing new ideas, refs, etc to the table (hopefully other editors would voice some support there too, so it's not "you against others who already are against"). At worst, someone could say "hey wait, let's take this to DRV to get more input". I don't see value in "revive as real article, then AfD it" because AfD explicitly not for article-cleanup (if you don't think it's viable, you'd simply be trying to building more consensus to keep the status quo redirect). DMacks (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nouniquenames 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Collect's Law

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – this is under discussion at MFD, please discuss there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

The page Wikipedia:Collect's Law has been created by a user:Collect. This page is in a main space, however, Collect definitely claims ownership of this page (the "law" has been named after him, the page contains his signature, and its style is almost indistinguishable from a user page). This page has been used as an argument in the disputes with me here and here, and I have a strong feeling that this was a main reason for its creation. I request that this ad hoc created essay, which, by virtue of its name and structure implies ownership and authorship by some concrete person, to be deleted or moved into the Collect's user space.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN is the wrong forum for this; please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Collect's_LawNobody Ent 17:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The "law" bears my name because it was so named the first time I stated it a long time ago (17 April 2011 - and I note Paul offered no objections at that time). As for "ownership" I suggest a person ought not alter a verbatim quotation from anyone with a deliberate alteration of its clear meaning. Wikipedia would not tolerate "Eighty seven years ago, some people started this country" and attach Lincoln's name to it <g> or even "Paul Siebert said, 'Geronimo Gnarph was an anti-communist propagandist'" as any alteration of any statement ascribed to any individual would be illogical to an extreme. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If this page has been built around your quote, move it to your user space.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Essays are permitted in WP:space; there's nothing inherently wrong with having such a page where it's currently located. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

However such do not often include instructions as to where edits are or are not acceptable to that essay, as this one did until 4 Nov 2012. The now current version seems to have dealt with such oddity to an extent. --Nouniquenames 04:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And any such improper wording has been removed from the essay ... there was no such wording until one editor chose to reword the quote to a great extent, which I found to be a tad annoying. After due consideration, I find the original wording to be quite sufficient as a quote, and anyone may surely add to that essay. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is quite the point. You found it annoying when another user changed it. Either it can be hacked to pieces or it cannot. If it cannot (without your blessing), you declare ownership, and it has no business in that namespace. --Nouniquenames 05:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll please pardon me if it seems to me that this discussion is asinine.

A.) Anyone can in general freely edit pages.

B.) We do not edit the words of others in discussions except to refactor or to fix minor typoes, etc.

The page falls under A, the quote falls under B.

So what the <blank> is the problem here? - jc37 06:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Disputed closure of RfC on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

User:Eraserhead1 has attempted to close a recent and very contentious RfC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal, concerning running Good Articles in the Did You Know slot on the Main Page. However, this closure is disputed by a considerable number of editors who state that the RfC should have been closed as "no consensus", and that major flaws in the way that the RfC was run mean that its outcome is unreliable. The main concerns that have been raised are that:

• The RfC only presented one option, giving no room for alternatives;
• It made no attempt to identify how the outcome would be implemented (the answer to this is still unknown);
• Many editors clearly thought they were voting just for running GAs on the Main Page, rather than on the specific question of including it in the DYK slot;
• A concurrent RfC on the basic question of running GAs on the Main Page was closed by the same editor with "no consensus", leading to contradictory outcomes ("no consensus" for running GAs anywhere on the Main Page [40], "consensus" for running GAs on the Main Page as part of DYK [41]).

It is planned that a new RfC setting out a range of options for whether and how GAs should appear on the Main Page will be run soon (provisionally starting on November 15 and running for 30 days). Its scope and wording is currently under discussion. This will supersede the RfC closed by Eraserhead1.

Eraserhead1 has indicated that s/he is willing to have the closure decision reviewed by a "triumvirate" of uninvolved admins and will abide by a re-closure.[42] It would be appreciated if three such admins could step up to review this closure. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making this request. To re-iterate I will stand by a re-closure regardless of what it is.

A few (fairly obvious) clarifications. If it closes as 1 for, 1 no-consensus and 1 against, then I will presume that means no consensus. If it closes as 2-1 for any option then whichever option got "2" in the review I will accept as the new result of the closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Counter proposal - I'd be willing to review the closure, I'm really uninvolved, with the following conclusion: Either endorse the closure the DYK moves forward with the proposal (of which I'm not entirely sure what it means yet) or not endorse in which case ya'all move forward with the RFC proposed by Prioryman. If that's not acceptable, I'm willing to be one of the three on the triumvirate.--v/r - TP 01:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's precisely because nobody knows what the outcome of the proposal means that a better organised RfC is going to be run as a followup. That will happen, whatever happens with the closure, so to some extent the closure will be a bit academic. Prioryman (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand this point at all - as nothing was specified they surely just go in the normal DYK queue.

If you really think the queuing issue is going to be a massive problem then if this closure is endorsed then the second RFC should just be about sorting that out - which shouldn't be controversial in the slightest.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the new RFC is going to be from first principles, as outlined at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal for new GA on the Main Page RfC. It will present options for running GAs in other areas of the Main Page as well as the most basic question of all - whether there is consensus for running them on the Main Page in the first place. (You yourself closed a discussion on that topic on Talk:Main Page as "no consensus".) The first RfC ignored any other options other than wedging them into DYK, so !voters who preferred other options (e.g. adding them to the Today's Featured Article slot) had nowhere to go. The new RFC will remedy that problem. It'll be definitive and comprehensive in a way that the first RFC wasn't, and will necessarily supersede it. I expect that the first RFC will never be implemented, however it's closed. Personally I would advise that it should be closed as "no consensus" awaiting the results of the new RFC. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Why go back to first principles when we nearly have consensus in one already. If a proposal nearly succeeds you don't make completely new ones, you modify the current one so it is more acceptable. This threat not to implement the current one if consensus is found is worrying though. Are you seriously suggesting that DYK editors are not going to promote Good articles out of spite. AIRcorn (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, can you please just stop re-hashing the entire debate and insisting on options that go against what the reviewer wants to do? Frankly it seems like you guys want to torpedo the chance of anyone closing anything DYK related ever again. It already took two weeks for the first closure - you are hardly making a good impression on the rest of the community by insisting on all this bureaucracy.

You guys might like the status quo, but ITN (where I have some previous experience) is certainly dysfunctional to the point of broken-ness, so one day everyone will come in and remove all the sections from the front page (apart from TFA maybe) or the whole project will fail. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, no one wants to torpedo the discussion. We simply want the chance to have a meaningful discussion that will come out with clear, solid consensus--not the fruit salad of maybe, kinda, sorta, something should be done response we got from this first, poorly structured and flaw-ridden RfC. As a serious topic that will have long-lasting impact on the front page, this deserves a serious discussion and a well-thought RfC that actually has a plan behind it. With both the original creator of the RfC admitted that it wasn't structure right and you admitting that you didn't even read much less take into consideration all the flaws and problems that people brought up about the RfC (an honest, good faith omission but an omission nonetheless) all we are asking for is a chance to do this thing right. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the flawed RFC comments. It was actually better than many as it made a specific proposal that could be implemented, to add a easily judged criteria to the DYK rules. That commentators made their own suggestions is part and parcel of any RFC and up to the closer to judge what they mean. Even so if you put a bolded support or oppose by it most editors know that it is for the one currently tabled. The suggestion elsewhere that they didn't know what they were !voting for is a little bit demeaning to the voters, anyway even if some did it would go both ways and the closer should take them into account (and given the simplicity of this RFC not likely to be more of an issue than anywhere else). A 60% support rate is borderline, but still not unreasonable to close in favour of supporting if some of the opposing comments were weak. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think what we're seeing here is a demonstration that it was a contentious RfC. Can the closure please be reviewed so that DYK can move on, whatever the decision? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Agne, torpedoing the review is how it comes across to me. Prioryman looks like he wants to add loads of conditions to the closure, and there are comments below from Poeticbent asking me to go against WP:CONSENSUS.
  • Really aside from Prioryman's initial post and comments in support of reviewing the decision there should be no other comments* here at all from you guys - and there certainly shouldn't be an "other comments" section.
  • Obviously I'm not an admin, and while my handling of the closure was undoubtably far from perfect the fact that I even bothered to reply to your comments without throwing my toys totally out the pram puts me in the top 25% of closers in terms of communication. A lot of the time when challenging an admin decision you have to threaten to escalate the matter as a violation of WP:ADMIN to get any kind of reply at all. That I offered a sensible review option at all probably puts me in the top 5% of closers or something - if not a smaller number - given that there isn't one marked out in policy yet (except for moves and deletions) and even that review process seems more than a little overly bureaucratic.
  • Obviously I am now WP:INVOLVED with this decision, but even if I wasn't there's no way I would review this decision as it stands given the number and content of the comments here, as if I closed the review as endorsed I don't believe that you guys will actually accept the decision and move on.
  • If you actually want a review (and possibly future closes in DYK - this one took long enough) then you have to accept TParis' conditions above, and promise to accept the review regardless of how it closes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

* = Except for the strong point about there being more than 5 GAs/day below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be fair enough if Prioryman had just left a neutral message asking for the closure to be reviewed. It only needed a single sentence. Instead he added his own interpretations and commentary of the close, all of which are really irrelevant or misrepresent the truth (e.g. why should an RFC have multiple options, it quite clearly said how to implement it, the voters not knowing what they were voting I addressed above and the concurrent one was not for putting GAs anywhere on the main page but for putting them in their own slot - a completely different scenario). AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Other comments

• There's no need for a "triumvirate" of uninvolved admins. The proposal was a joke to begin with, and it was bluntly rejected by people who run DYK; however, it was also gleefully supported by the happy-go-lucky nominators who practically enslave our DYK team with an avalanche of crap. The proposal was highly partisan, and it should have been rejected as is. It was closed in favor of editors who attempt to force our dearest hard-working DYK volunteers into submission. I wouldn't be surprised if half of them quit as a result of this particular closure. Poeticbent talk 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't you realise that it is this sort of us against them attitude that has alienated a lot of the hard working DYK crowd from the rest of Wikipedia. It is just perpetuating a vicious circle. AIRcorn (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take Poeticbent's comments to be indicative of all DYK regulars and it is certainly isn't indicative of why many people have serious reservations about the closure for this haphazard RfC--the issues of which have been well documented. Many of us do believe that DYK needs some reform and that serious discussions should be had but, unfortunately, this RfC was kinda thrown together by a relatively new user who admitted they may not have put it together in the best way. We also have the closer, Eraserhead, admitting that he didn't get a chance to read all the discussion relating to the serious problems that came about the RfC prior to closing it. It was a good faith close but with the original editor who creating the RfC admitting there may have been issues with how it was put together and the closer admitting that he wasn't aware of those issues when he did the close, I think it is pretty clear that we need to move on and get a proper RfC going. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to Agne's comments on the decision, the figure of 5 new GA articles per day that was used to make a decision is too low as the GA bot log for article assessment seems to indicate. It seems it is more like 5 on a slow day and 15 on a good one, so more like 10 on average. Which for a five day allowance if all of them were submitted (probably not the case, but worst case scenario) would be between 25 and 75 submission/ 5 day period or given the current DYK backlog of about 2-3 weeks would be around 75-250 GA articles in the mix for review. GAs are longer than regular DYK and therefore less likely to be reviewed quickly, so I foresee most of them sitting on the nom page for > 2 weeks, so the numbers will indeed build up. The arguments that they might overwhelm DYK are valid arguments. DYK has been mentioned before on laxity in reviewing which comes from inexperienced and too few reviewers and a too many articles to review (GAs will have problems too, probably more so due to a more complete viewpoint open to interpretation). How will increased numbers of articles to review help the lack of reviewers problem (which is why there is a 2-3 week backlog in the first place)? The already overtaxed regulars will have to pick up the slack. We could say that GAs don't need a DYK review, but that could be considered unfair and there would be a higher proportion of GAs to regular DYKs. Plus if something was lacking in a GA review, it would not have a chance of being caught with another review. So it may look relatively simple to just include GAs but we really have to look down the road as to how this is going to affect the DYK and GA projects long-term. Not to mention, isn't it lying to say "newest content" if we include GAs. That would be a serious change to a core DYK policy, and does this vote even have the right to change project rules against the wishes of most of the project members (WP:consensus does not deal with this)? If this passes, could I then lead a vote to make WP: Horse racing cover tortoise racing (same difference, a core project policy is being changed) if there was enough outside pressure through a proposal? If GAs are included in DYK (why not TFA, ITN or OTD for that matter), wouldn't it make more sense for GA to review them? I hope these issues will be considered objectively and fairly in the review. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 13:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should write off 150 plus comments that easily. The RFC asked a simple question and none of the issues raised so far are insurmountable. From a GA perspective (speaking for myself anyway) it is not ideal, but we serve at the communities pleasure. AIRcorn (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating why you think the proposal is "not ideal" from the GA perspective Aircorn? The viewpoint might have not been addressed. I didn't see much talk of what the GA project felt about the idea, and I don't know if the project was notified of the discussion on DYK talk. The community may want to jump over a cliff, but I'm not willing to follow them there. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 13:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should be re-hashing the whole debate here... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Aircorn has responded with his views at my talk page to keep the discussion on track. I only brought up the 5/day issue here because I thought this was an important part of your decision to close the proposal and the estimate may have not been entirely correct. I'm also having trouble locating the accepted Wiki policies for changing project rules/structure/guidelines outside of editing/article issues, is it up to a vote by the members/active participants or the community at large? Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Bringing up the 5/day point is a very strong point, and one of the few worthwhile comments in this thread, but it shouldn't need two paragraphs of explanation - it sits alone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite. I would quite like to get this review completed promptly, but I still think it is very important to do a review. From the closers perspective it is very difficult to tell the difference between people simply whinging about the close and people having legitimate reservations - a review is a good way of making sure that the reservations raised are legitimate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, it would be best if you yourself Eraserhead1 investigate the matter. Check out the list of volunteers (administrators, and those Actively involved) at Wikipedia:Did you know and consider their daily volume of work done. Their opinions matter, because they keep the whole thing going. The RFC result was too close for comfort anyways. Poeticbent talk 06:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly consensus isn't just about counting the regulars.

Secondly no-one can possibly reasonably review their own work. You have to get a third party to do it.

Finally if you guys can't get anyone to review the decision, that sounds like the main problem isn't my close, but your behaviour as a group - think about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I find your reaction quite disappointing Eraserhead1. You might have been taken for a ride, but instead of taking your time to consider it, you prefer to be subjected to a surgery. The choice is yours of course. Poeticbent talk 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

At a certain point I don't care - nor do I have to deal with the consequences - as I'm not involved in DYK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem was not that it was "contentious", though obviously it was, the problem was that it was so badly thought out. There are many different options for where GAs could appear on the Main Page. However, the RFC only suggested one option and essentially ignored all the rest. To use an analogy, it's as if today's US election had one question on the ballot paper: "Do you want Mitt Romney to be president?" and omitted any mention of any of the other candidates. This was not a situation where there was only one possible solution. The purpose of the forthcoming new RFC is to put all of the solutions to the community to consider.

As for TParis's "conditions", they are really quite irrelevant - the new RFC is going to happen and it is going to supersede this first RFC. Personally I'm quite indifferent as to how the first RFC is closed, as I don't see it being implemented while the new RFC is ongoing. It's possible that the new RFC might come to the same conclusion as the first one - I won't prejudge it - but I doubt that anyone is going to spend time and effort trying to implement the flawed first RFC if the community comes to a different conclusion in the second, definitive one. Frankly, what is the hurry? The new RFC should be closing around mid-December, assuming it opens in about 10 days' time as planned. I would suggest holding off until then. Nobody will be harmed or inconvenienced by a delay of a few weeks. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So if you don't agree with a result the solution is to declare it flawed and ignore it. I am getting the distinct impression you are doing everything possible to sink this one, why else would you disagree with one of the potential closers conditions and unilaterally declare a new RFC that will override the current one. This is no more flawed than any other RFC. Where is it said that they need to present multiple options? Most don't. You are basically saying that the 150 people who commented can all be ignored. If it is confirmed as successful and no one else is willing to implement it then I will do so myself. AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not agreeing with the result - it's that the way it was conducted was fundamentally flawed by virtue of the fact that it ignored all but one possible option. As for trying to implement an outcome unilaterally, I would strongly advise against that, as it will only annoy people. I said earlier that it's not urgent. Why not just wait until mid-December when the new RFC's results will be in? Nobody loses out by doing so. Since we'll have a definitive outcome by that time, there is far less chance that it will be contentious by that time. Prioryman (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A non-contentious RFC involving DYK. It would be a nice change. I have no problem with a new RFC if this closes as no consensus, but this one should be sorted out first and the closure should be respected. AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you obviously don't actually want a review and you don't want anyone to close anything in DYK ever again.

If you wanted a review you'd be prepared to accept the result of the review regardless and you'd be prepared to accept some sensible and reasonable conditions.

If other people here actually want a review, and are prepared to accept one regardless of conditions and will accept the result regardless let me know on my talk page or comment again here and I'll see what can be done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would I be asking for a review if I didn't want one? If someone wants to review the first one, they're very welcome to do so but they need to be aware of the fact of the forthcoming new RFC. I'm just pointing out that whatever the result of the review is, it will be superseded by the new RFC. Prioryman (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly at this point I have no idea why you asked for a review. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Some advice on COMPETENCE

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 are a number of editors who are on my radar due to potential competence issues - they are normally productive editors, but as they fail to grasp some of our basics, and as they seem unable/unwilling to use talk pages, it's getting to be a pain. There is one particular editor (I won't mention names yet as I want to keep this deliberately general) who updates sports stats without updating the date. It's obviously a minor issue, and so I don't want to seem petty/harsh by blocking, but it's potentially disruptive as it often leads to incorrect information being added by others as people do not realise the page is actually up-to-date. I'm not the only editor who has raised this issue with them - no response, and no change in editing pattern. So basically I'm seeking some advice from some more experienced colleagues as to what I can do. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like they are regularly editing in incorrect/misrepresented information to articles. (Which is probably the worst thing any User can do, without breaking some defamation law). If they won't respond to discussion/warning, they need to be blocked indef, until they do. Don't they?Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They are adding correct information, but it's indeed misrepresented - there is no indication (other from going through page history) that the sports stats included by said editor are up-to-date - which leads to other good-faith editors trying to 'update' on their behalf and getting it wrong. So I suppose they are indirectly adding incorrect information? GiantSnowman 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They are misrepresenting, according to the scenario provided, which is proved by the subsequent confusion and makes whatever they are doing incorrect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point - but is indeffing really the way? I've also just notice them update the relevant date paramater as well so maybe they have begun to listen... GiantSnowman 12:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that. It is bad form that they will not discuss and tell you they have learned of the need to correctly represent this information, so now what appears to be needed is a request that they do so, and they will find trouble with their editing (including their editing privileges) in the future should they continue the pattern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They should also be asked to review their edits and correct, wherever it has not been done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, message left - I'll continue to monitor. GiantSnowman 15:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Banning Laura Hale from DYK?

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 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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Nobody Ent 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we please have a moratorium or ban on Laura Hale DYKs? Both the hooks and the articles in general are much too often of very dubious quality and contain many incorrectly interpreted sources, and thus shouldn't be shown on the mainpage. It is nice to encourage a newbie with a DYK, but we should expect a lot more from experienced editors. Fram (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A ban on Gibraltar-related DYKs didn't work, so I don't think a ban on people who have written Gibraltar-related DYKs is worth pursuing either. I think Laura should be asked to slow down and maybe receive some helpful advice offered in a less aggressive tone. Jumping on her with threads like this because of silly things like a perfectly respectable source being footnoted at the end of the wrong statement - when that statement already has another perfectly respectable source supporting it - is not helpful. (Particularly at the same time as another "ban Gibraltar" editor is throwing accusations that appear to have their origins in internal WM-AU politics.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking at the least serious problem listed here and ignoring all the much more disturbing ones isn't really helpful either. And note that none of the DYKs listed above is GibraltarpediA related, the Gibraltar rocks articles were obviously created by her to reference the GibraltarpediA problems but that is hardly relevant here. I have never seen any established editor creating so many problematic articles in such a short time, and believing that they are good enough for DYK anyway. I am also ammazed at the ease that these articles are then promoted to DYK, but that's a different problem. Fram (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• If you don't want people pointing out that some of the "problems" you've mentioned are actually extremely trivial, then it would be best not to try to pad out the complaint with such trivial things. As I've said, I think jumping in with both feet and going for a "ban" is much less appropriate than arranging some helpful advice and discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Some" <> "One", and having a hook with two sources, where one just happens not to support it at all, isn't that trivial. Of course, if that was her worst offense, this section would be serious overkill. On the other hand, it is an example of how she has problems in most of hert DYK nominations. The one under discussion is a minor symptom of a much bigger problem, that she can't be trusted to use sources appropriately, misplacing sources, using sources for statements not in the source, or using sources which are not about the subject at all. As for helpful advice and discussion, I have had a discussion with her previously, about an article where she completely misused multiple sources. She did not give any indication of either understanding the problem or wanting to do something about it. Finding then that it wasn't an isolated incident but a pattern in most of her articles, measures must be taken to prevent these problems from appearing on the mainpage. The DYK review process can clearly not be trusted to fix this, so the swiftest solution is to ban her articles from DYK. Feel free to mentor her so that she can improve her track record; at that moment, there is no reason not to lift the ban again. Fram (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose LauraHale is a diligent editor who produces a lot of good work. Think you should put your own house in order first. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What's that supposed to mean? Fram (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • User:Fram states quite plainly "Native language is Dutch, so you may expect some grammatical errors and other crimes against the English language." This warning seems accurate as articles of Fram's creation such as Dupuis contain howlers such as "The growth of Dupuis towards the leading comic book editor of Belgium started in 1938...". See the Mote and the Beam. Warden (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• The beam! The beam! Always follow the path of the beam! As you grow towards your nearest comic book editor! :-D
• Would it be unreasonably POINTy to start a mirror proposal for a topic ban for Fram? In my experience, the Dutch have always had excellent English, but I think Laura is likely to be Australian, so I don't see why special exceptions should be made for Fram but not for Laura. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is "This user page is written by an American who lives in Australia" being the first sentence on her user page not a clue? Mogism (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Eek! Even worse! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Whoever closes this please note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Hawkeye7_has_a_Conflict_of_Interest_with_regards_to_LauraHale Andreas JN466 15:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Really, so now we're down to topic bans and mudslinging? When I've spotchecked her sources I've found little issue. She should take a bit more time stringing her sentences together (and use a few more complex sentences) but that's definitely not DYK criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "Mudslinging"? That your spotchecks didn't reveal much is not really relevant. The problems I raised aren't really few and far between, but all extremely recent. On 29 October, she received a DYK for Tristan Clemons, stating "that Australian field hockey goalkeeper Tristan Clemons is researching nanoparticles that could treat injuries and fight cancer?" Actually, this is WP:SYNTH: nanoparticles could fight cancer, and Tristan Clemons is researching nanoparticles, so he is reasearching nanoparticles that could fight cancer? Wrong, he is actually researching nanoparticles "for the treatment of central nervous system injuries"[43]. Her DYK before that was for Gibraltar Creek, stating that "that Gibraltar Creek is not located in Gibraltar at all, but is a 13.1-kilometre (8.1-mile) long river found in Australia?". The source given for that length actually states "The Gibraltar Creek drops around 774m over its 13.3km length."[44] Then where comes the 13.1km from? And how is Bonzle even a reliable source? It looks to be a wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 November 2012 UTC
• Support per my comment above. Graham87 12:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment—It's very frustrating that Laura reacts indignantly at any feedback on her writing. And Hawkeye, she might be "diligent" in a narrow sense, churning out lots of stubs and pushing into the DYK queue articles she believes she's sufficiently improved, but she seems to be blind to any sense that her editing standards might need to be seriously upgraded. As for your claim that she produces "a lot of good work", that's simply not credible. Initially my intention was to offer help; when I was given the brush-off, it was hard to take such a constructive attitude to her need to improve her skills in prose, referencing, etc. It's a strange and ultimately self-destructive attitude we don't often encounter. Heck, my time on WP has really improved my prose and academic skills—I've learnt from other editors, from reviewers, from stylists who still know better than I do; and let me assert that my starting-point was a lot higher than hers was. Something has to give, but an outright ban seems like a contingency only if she persists down the current route. If DYK had proper reviewing, her nominations would simply be knocked back. So I see this as a systemic wake-up call for DYK to get real about reform. Tony (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sets a bad precedent. Topic bans really should be limited to intentionally malicious behavior. If others editors don't like LauraHale's output, then put your energy to editing somebody else's nomination. There's no short supply of needy nominations. Should we go one-by-one and ban all other editors who don't seem up to snuff? Is there a check list of how many mistakes any one editor or nominator can make before being tossed? Or we just singling out LauraHale? — Maile (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, I think a topic ban would need to involve Arbitration Committee, not a ban by fellow DYK editors who may not be impartial and uninvolved. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans can be instated by the community: "The community may also impose a number of different editing restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior, usually at an administrator's noticeboard." Whether this place qualifies as a correct venue can be debated, but a topic ban certainly doesn't need to involve ArbCom. Furthermore, all kinds of bans an blocks are given for behaviour that is not intentionally malicious, but which is disruptive nonetheless, due to e.g. a lack of competence, or a disregard for community standards, or whatever other reason may apply. And if you know of any other editor with the experience, the number of DYK nominations (succeeded and failed ones), and the amount of problems in these nominations and articles, then feel free to discuss these as well. I am only aware of the problems with LauraHales editing and DYKs, so I restricted this discussion to her contributions. This doesn't mean that she is the only or even the worst such editor, but that she is the one I'm aware of. Fram (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Sets a good precedent. As Tony says, DYK needs to get real about reform. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Graham and Malleus. WP:Competence: The work is too sloppy. As mentioned at ANI, prose problems abound, and how anyone can think that this source, with multiple mentions of glaciers, is talking about this hill in Australia is beyond me. That error was in the article on the day it was on the main page, and remained until I just took it out now. As Fram mentions above, the hook, based on this source, was wrong too (the source said the person found the rubbish on their way to the hill, not on the hill, and there is an obvious question about whether someone having dumped his washing machine and kitchen sink on the side of a dirt track somewhere in the outback deserves a permanent commemoration in an encyclopedia). Whoever approved that DYK nomination and hook ought to hang their head in shame. Andreas JN466 15:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Look, this is ridiculous. It comes across as far too vindictive and driven by past animosities. If a contributor's writing has shortcomings (note - I'm not making judgements here about Laura's writing, I don't think I've reviewed any of her DYKs) then the right thing to do is to help that contributor, give them feedback and advise them on ways to improve. Many times, including several times today, if I find issues with an article I'm reviewing I fix them quietly and if it's a systematic issue I might contact the contributor to give some advice. But I would never think of banning them, unless they were doing something way outside the bounds of propriety such as systematically deleting anything that conflicts with their personal POV. Running straight for the banning stick is totally against Wikipedia's basic ethos of editors "always treating each other with consideration and respect", as WP:CIVIL puts it. Prioryman (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I would agree with Prioryman if it wasn't for the fact that the attitude Laura takes when criticised is unconstructive. There are clearly substantial errors and issues with her articles, and given the approach she's taken to other issues I have no confidence in her ability to correct for them. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• (after approximately a million edit conflicts) Question: It does appear there are some repeated issues in Laura's hooks/writing. Has she been offered any kind of mentorship/coaching about how to use sources or phrase hooks, etc? I'm hesitant to support a topic-ban for someone operating in the best of faith and doing their best, especially if a little bit of coaching would straighten things out instead. I see that Tony1 above says he offered to help her, but judging by other venues, Tony and Laura have a somewhat adversarial relationship and it might not be surprising to see her turn him down. Has anyone else offered? Is this a case of "with a little help this can be fixed", or is this a case of "needs help, but won't accept it, so what else can we do here?"? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: OK she has made a few mistakes but there is no need for the "I cast ye out" attitude. I agree with Prioryman, she might need some assistance and advice but there is no need to do this proposal to her. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I reviewed a number of her Olympic hooks and found no problems with those articles. If she's made some mistakes since then, they should be appropriately addressed, but to outright ban her? Seriously? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with Fluffernutter's point here. I think that a ban at this point would be premature. There are some issues with her DYK work, but I think it would be better to give her another shot and have her work under a mentor/coach for a while. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but do send in your best mentor, because I've seen her reactions to comments about her writing. There's a syndrome, which might already have been named: getting away with it is not the same as getting good. Stepping around her touchiness, to a willingness to take suggestions, is key. --Lexein (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Turn this link blue and attempt to come to a voluntary solution first. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - there should be tighter copyediting on DYKs before they get approved - blame the community, not the editor trying to help out. Further - I have to edit upwards of perhaps half-a-dozen DYKs a day for simple things like MOS (mainly WP:OPENPARA and WP:MOSFLAG) as well as date formats/templates. Some of those are Laura's, some are others. Why punish her specifically? GiantSnowman 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Way too extreme and comes across as vindictive payback for prior wiki-drama. Her nominations deserve more scrutiny and after this brew-ha they will certainly get it but an outright banning sets a terrible precedent. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The supposed issues with the articles in question seem quite petty and unimportant. Laura is not the problem here. See campaign to drive away productive contributors. Warden (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That was alarming, for a second there I thought your link went to an actual project by that name. I guess that would be too obvious though. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A repeat of the usual Wikipedia situation. A semi-prominent person who could benefit from a bit of a course correction never gets it because they know the ropes, have a posse etc. and because Wikipedia lacks a mechanism for providing weighty advice. Then, much later, it gets bigger and they crash and burn. Suggestion: distill some weighty advice from all of this and give it to her. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Beeblebrox and (minus remark about posse) with North8000. Laura is not the only frequent submitter to DYK whose writing and use of sources are problematic. DYK reviews and the following checks by the person who promotes the hook to the prep area and the admin who moves the prep set to a queue are all supposed to catch problems such as those cited, and in many cases have been doing. (In addition DYK encourages any editor to fix a problem, and I have in fact fixed what I could in two of Laura Hale's recent nominations to which my attention has been drawn through the discussion that led to this motion.) This is not the right approach. Working with the editor and reminding people at DYK that it's at least partly a workshop is more likely to be effective, rather than drive off a valuable and hard working contributor, as well as fairer. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is the responsibility of whoever checks and lets the DYK go ahead if bad DYK submissions are posted on the main page. Such a campaign seems simply harassing. --Cyclopia^talk 18:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Hmmm. I have reviewed and copyedited quite a number of her DYKs and other articles. I do find that there are significant problems--with sourcing, with article structure (lots of athletic articles had long prose lists of results, for instance), and especially with prose. Sorry, this is harsh, but the prose is not good. Crisco may be right in that good writing is not specifically a DYK requirement, but decent writing ought to be a requirement for any article, and good writing ought to be a requirement for any article we put in the front window. I also think that a ban is possibly overdoing it--but then, while many a time Laura has thanked me kindly for improvements, there is no improvement overall. The issues persist. Athletes' articles are churned out one after another, all in the exact same way with the same weak spots, and this suggests to me (since I believe her to be of good faith) that she just does not see it. Some people don't understand the difference between good and bad writing. My mother doesn't--but she typed up bills and inventory, not encyclopedic prose. So I'm a bit doubtful that mentoring would help, and if there is a mentor, it would have to be a strict one who lays down the Law of Good Writing (yeah I know, there is no such law) and progress would have to be visible.

  Some other issues are pointed at here--DYK writing as a kind of workshop? I disagree--that's not how it is set up. That's not to say articles have to be perfect when they're nominated, but they shouldn't be drafts (or templates). I'm also concerned with parts of the process: many of those poorly written DYKs made it to the front page, they were not pulled when they should have been. In other words, I am concerned with oversight, and that's another kettle of fish. If there were strict(er) oversight then this might not be so problematic. I hope that there is a better solution here than a ban, but if we continue to believe, as I hear in some of the comments above, that "there is no problem", then we're kidding ourselves. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Low Countries are famous for their greenhouses but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The article chicken fried bacon was at DYK and reads more like an advert than anything I've seen produced for Gibraltarpedia. User:Drmies has written hundreds of articles and that one was just picked at random. Shall I go on...? Warden (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• By all means, Colonel, go on. Don't let me cramp your style. But you may have noticed that I didn't say anything about Gibraltarpedia or about writing ads. If you want to pick another 'random' selection of my edits (you couldn't possibly have picked that at random), pick this series of edits, which has the benefit of being on point. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) Clarifying - by "at least partly a workshop", I'm drawing attention to the historical culture at DYK of using the review as an opportunity to work together to bring the article to an adequate standard. I agree, reviewers should draw attention to problems; I'll also point out again that those who promote articles to the prep set and the admins who move prep sets into queues should also be checking for obvious problems. Articles should be ready when nominated, but in practice often aren't, partly because some submitters do have writing problems. That and the fact that at least the process leading to the article's being passed as ready for DYK should be in collaboration with the article writer(s) is why I say "workshop". Yngvadottir (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It is regrettable that when Laura put herself up to review in Summer she got very little advise (actually, got advise to concentrate on DYK), whereas the problems which are mentioned in this thread apparently already existed. An advise at that time could have improved things. Right now, I agree that RFC may be the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• This just seems a bit... hasty? --Rschen7754 19:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beeblebrox. This may have got to the point where an RFC would be in order, it has not got to the point where the RFC process should be skipped. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• This thread is a perfect example why our process of "discipline by mob rule" is ridiculously broken. There's a vague allegation of somebody producing bad DYK articles, with no links, no diffs, no evidence whatsoever, no indication of prior dispute resolution, and people are seriously commenting about it? That's silly, and the proposer should be trouted.  Sandstein  21:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and close per Sandstein. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I third the motion to close: no ban is coming out of this, and thus this isn't a matter for administrators anymore. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Snow Oppose per above. Also opposed to an RFC/U at this point, as they have too much potential to degenerate into witch hunts. At this point would just advise she reduces her output a little so she has more time to improve her prose. She looks to be too good a scholar to need a formal mentor, but maybe could occasionally ask others to look at their drafts and give them advise on better wording. (Id be happy to be help every now and then if need be, though Im sure their would be no shortage from the editors that normally work in her topic areas). FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Not wanting to reopen this discussion now, but it is a pity that this discussion was taken out of its context, leaving people like Sandstein understandably opposing (and trouting me) because there was no evidence, no links, no diffs and so on. In the original discussion, which can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Rock, Porongurups, those diffs were provided. By only removing the subsection to this place, and without a link to the original discussion, people voting here didn't get the full picture or the context of my proposal. I'm not claiming that that context would have changed the outcome, but it at least would have changed the appearance of the proposal as being baseless. Fram (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support she has made many errors, doing radical reviews and citing her own guidelines (for example she states that the lead of lists should be referenced despite there are already tables below). Her hooks are almost always uninteresting about uninteresting articles and sometimes biased (in particular towards women), leading to accumulations of unreviewed proposals and a possible creation of systemic bias. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD:G6

I recently returned to WP:RM#Backlog patrol after a short Wikibreak from it. My practice has been to close those where the consensus is clear, and contribute to the discussion and perhaps relist where the decision was unclear. In those discussions in which I've become involved, I watch the talk page (either by watchlist or my contributions) to see whether I need to clarify anything.

A recent and slightly involved discussion was closed as move and I found the resulting talk page redirect had been deleted as G6: Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article and the several links to it were therefore broken. This deletion rather surprised me, as my practice, and I thought the correct procedure, has always been to leave a redirect to the new talk page location.

Wikipedia:CSD#G6 reads in part Uncontroversial maintenance, such as deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, or performing uncontroversial page moves.... But it doesn't seem to justify a blanket deletion of talk page redirects following moves, and especially after ones where there were dissenting voices.

The admin who performed the move has now objected to my recreation of the redirect, and I have no problem with that, I was going to start a discussion in any case. They correctly point out that G6: Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article is one of the drop-down options in the deletion process.

But if CSD:G6 is to be applied so broadly, why automatically create a talk page redirect after a move at all? And/or doesn't Wikipedia:CSD#G6 need an update to make this clear?

Interested in other views, and particularly in whether there's been a change of policy or procedure that I've missed. Links to it and the related discussion if so would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

When a page is moved after a "requested move" discussion, it does not usually make sense to delete the resulting redirect, especially when there are links to it. I generally favor a broad reading of G6, but deleting those redirects is even broader than I would go. I would leave a redirect pointing to the same place as the article itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note I did not delete the actual redirect, only the talk page of the redirect and even then I agree this should not be done in most cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenks24 (talk • contribs)

Agree. But the drop-down menu as it now stands seems to suggest such a broad reading for some admins at least. See User talk:Andrewa#G6 which reads in part redirects don't need talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Some page moves don't need redirects, though. I would say the problem is not the summary, it is an overly broad reading of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

More like a sloppy implementation. When you delete an article, you should always consider the redirects. Sometimes a redlink is OK, sometimes it's not, but the deleting admin should at least check and figure out what to do.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Jenks24 (deleting admin) here. Thanks for starting this discussion Andrew. First, I'd just like to make sure a few things are clear: this was the talk page of a redirect, not the actual redirect; in the vast majority of cases I do not delete the talk page of a redirect, this was an unusual case; I only deleted the redirect, not the actual talk page, so I have not covered up the RM in any way (the fact that there were dissenting votes did not factor into my decision). For anyone looking at this, I'd really encourage them to read my note at Andrew's talk page and look at the RM in question. The reason I deleted the talk page redirect was because leaving it would be more confusing than making it a redlink. Here's what happened: consensus was to move page A to B, but the redirect then created at A should then point to C. So A was now a redirect to C, but Talk:A was a redirect to Talk:B. Confusing, especially for newer editors. Now Talk:A could be changed to point to Talk:C, but that doesn't help much because, assuming there are any incoming links to Talk:A (and yes, I did check the incoming links before deleting), they are actually intended for Talk:B and ending up at the talk page of a dab page would actually be more confusing than landing on a log page that shows where the talk page they're seeking was moved to. Deleting the talk page redirect also has the added bonus of making it much easier for an admin to move a page to A in future (if you look at the RM in question, you can see there is a fair chance of that happening). I want to emphasise I do this rarely and basically only when a situation is created where the talk redirect points to a different place to the actual redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenks24 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the details. I suppose I would redirect the talk page to B, as the most likely destination. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think it's a little ridiculous (and more confusing) to have the talk page redirect point to a completely different location to the article-space redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenks24 (talk • contribs)

Replying to the above comment by Jenks24 at 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC) [45] (the indented stringing is correct but a little involved): Yes, there's no doubt that the redirect needed attention. What I'm questioning is (1) whether on reflection this was the best way to fix it, as your request to redelete it [46] implied, and (2) whether there's any truth to your rather sweeping statement that redirects don't need talk pages. My answers so far are no, and no. See below. Andrewa (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still sorting out the logic, but here are some interim conclusions:

• There has been no change of policy or of practice, and the bald statement that redirects don't need talk pages, even in the context, is highly misleading (and to me alarming, obviously).

• The deletion of the (talk page) redirect was in error. The primary cause of this error is an unclear item of the drop-down menu of deletion edit summaries, which does not match the intention of the policy at WP:CSD.

• The generated redirect was not ideal however. This is an unusual case, and the (talk page) redirect needed fixing. It's just that speedy deletion wasn't the optimal solution.

• Probably the best solution would be a short talk page consisting of a short list of links to the relevant talk pages.

I'll create such a list as an example. More comments welcome. Andrewa (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. More comments still welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I still stand by my statement "redirects don't need talk pages" – they don't. Sure, there's no reason to go around deleting them, but in the large majority of cases they serve no purpose. I disagree the deletion was in error – it is simple housekeeping and as such clearly falls under G6. By the way, how is the drop-down summary unclear? It is clearly for a situation such as this. If not, can you please explain a time when "redirect created by move of associated article" would be more appropriate? Or are you advocating its removal? Not meaning to sound like a jerk, but what you've created (the talk page) is a lot of work for absolutely no benefit (and it will most likely be deleted in a few months). Are you really suggesting that should be done in all cases like this? I think I should add I'm far from the only admin who does this and I only learnt that this was the way to go by watching others. I'll drop notes at WT:RM and WT:CSD because I think you're suggesting a quite marked change to (this little area) the current standard practice. Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If a redirect has a discussion should this be a redirect to article [A] or [B], wouldn't that be a valid thing to keep on its talk page at least for a while? RJFJR (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Please note I did not delete a page that had discussion on it and I don't advocate doing so. Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirects do need talk pages. Some redirects have active talk pages, more commonly though they are used to hold records of old discussions (e.g. {{old rfd}}, {{old AfD multi}}), WikiProject templates (e.g. those in Category:Redirect-Class London Transport articles) and/or old discussions from the page before it became a redirect (often including the discussion that lead to the associated page becoming a redirect). In the case of page moves such as this one, where a redirect is left at the original title of the associated page then the talk page redirect should remain for exactly the same reasons - to enable people to find the page and avoid breaking incoming links. If the deletion drop down implies that deleting these redirects is uncontroversial maintenance then it should be changed immediately. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, I must not be explaining myself clearly. My statement was obviously very broad and I thought of adding a few caveats (such as old AfD and RfD templates), but thought it wouldn't be necessary. I will amend it to say: most redirects don't need talk pages. Again, if they have them (even if they've just been created by a move) there is almost always no point in deleting them, but there are exceptions. Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You're not stringing your explanations very well, at least... Note that the above is a later comment than my reply below at the same indent level. I'm afraid I find most redirects don't need talk pages equally unhelpful. I'm not sure how to decide exactly what it means or how it's to be applied if adopted. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-ups [47] [48], agree that this discussion is very relevant to those two talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Post notice - rather than redirecting or deleting, instead post a notice on the talk pages saying "The article associated with this talk page was moved to blahblahblah on date." Maybe even have the Wikimedia software generate that automatically. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do redirects need talk pages

IMO any page needs a talk page if there is relevant discussion concerning the page, and not otherwise. This talk page could be a redirect to another talk page, or it could be a list of links to other talk pages, or it could be a WikiProject template, or a combination of these or any number of other valid forms of discussion and/or linkage to discussion.

I can't see anything particularly special about the talk pages of article namespace pages that happen to be redirects, other than it might be more common to have no relevant discussion.

In the case of a talk page redirect created by a Requested Move in the article namespace, this means that the redirect in the article namespace has been deliberately created, so there's always relevant discussion. So I can't see any case in which deletion of the resulting talk page redirect would be the correct option. The talk page might need work to change or expand the redirect, as in this case, but never deletion.

At the very least, such deletions are not uncontroversial at present, so CSD:G6 does not apply. Andrewa (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably my fault more than yours, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall a little here. I've probably replied too much as well, so I'll let others comment from here out. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, none of the third party comments so far seem to support either the deletion in this case, or the principle on which it was based, or the reading of the dropdown menu supporting that principle. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to lift a topic ban

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

---

Links - User:Alan Liefting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am currently under a topic ban and "may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted". See the discussion here. Category-related edits were a large part of my editing history prior to the topic ban.

The way I see it is that the topic ban is in place mainly because I am perceived to be carrying out disruptive edits relating to categories. It is generally the removal of images from content categories that is seen as disruptive. I cannot see how this is the case. The edits in question do not contravene policy or guidelines (since there is no explicit instructions on it) and the unwritten convention is generally to not have images in content categories. If there are images categorised within Wikipedia they are generally placed in a category that is labelled as an image category. The ban is in place because it is a sort of content dispute rather than disruptive editing.

The categorisation of templates is a related but less contentious issue. Templates, to an even greater extent than images, are of very little interest to readers as a standalone page. Templates come into their own as part of an article as a navigational aid. As with images it is unusual to see templates listed in a content category. Therefore, to ensure consistency (a good thing) and for the benefit of the reader I remove templates from content category listings.

Images, and even more so with templates, can be seen as predominantly an editors page rather than a reader or content page. Images are made accessible through the article themselves and a reader can choose to view the page itself via the article. Also, for all of the free images, Commons does the job of categorisation, and Wikipedia is linked to it through the addition of various templates.

So rather than being disruptive in my editing I put it to you that I am simply doing what is best for the reader and following what is done in the well maintained and popular sections of Wikipedia. Note that not all of the edits that I have done in contravention of the topic ban have been reverted. Here are some examples:

• [49] - removal of content category from a template
• [50] - ditto
• [51] - an Articles for Creation page in a content category. I cannot seem to get categories automatically excluded from the AfC pages. The community is not showing an interest in this issue.
• [52] - WikiProjects are not categorised in content categories
• [53] - recategorisation
• [54] - adding a tracking category to a main category
• [55] - notes for a maint category (see below)

Also, the undoing of this edit of mine is in itself disruptive editing. A random logo of a random organisation does not belong in the five content categories that I removed. The same goes for [56] and [57].

I have regrettably contravened my topic ban on a number of occasions leading to blocks being placed on my editing. Some of the edits were in defiance of the topic ban to achieve what, in my opinion, was an improvement to Wikipedia but others were due to oversight. Since the topic ban was enacted I have placed two WP:CFDs using Twinkle. Using Twinkle seemed to somehow divorce the edits from my topic ban. Also, at a time when I was intensely focussed on trying to clear the backlog at Category:Articles with missing files my enthusiasm for the task meant that I added various notes and tools on the category page forgetting that it came under the ban. Given that this is quite different to the type of editing that led to the topic ban I guess it could be seen as acceptable even though it falls under the purview of the ban. Interestingly, the editors who are monitoring my editing have not questioned these category edits.

The discussion that led to a consensus for my topic ban is also worthy of inspection. One editor admitted a lack of knowledge of the issue and seemed to make a decision that was a bandwagon fallacy and another simply said "Per above; enough is enough" (which may also be seen as jumping on the bandwagon). Another editor gave no reason for supporting the topic ban. The discussion also shows that there is no agreed editing style for all aspects of images with respect to categories. I would like to urge all editors who partake in this discussion to look at my edit history afresh rather than relying on the existing discussions.

I would also like to point out that I am often consulted on category-related editing by editors who are not familiar with the category system. This suggests that I have some credence in this area of Wikipedia editing. On the other hand there a few editors who have a strong disagreement with my category editing style. I started a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages to try and get some certainty around category related edits. After an initial flurry of interest, the proposal stagnated. I would like to see the MOS completed and and consensus obtained to clarify any category related edits.

As a final point I would like to have the topic ban lifted because it is restricting a large part of editing that I am able and willing to do. Any reverting, additions, or improvements that are category-related that I come across will have to be ignored by me or passed onto other editors. This is inefficient and does not help the project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Looking at the discussion that resulted in the topic ban, I don't think the objection raised above are sufficient to overturn the close. In a topic ban discussion, saying you agree with the positions of those advocating a ban is a legitimate expression in support of the ban. An editor need not find independent reason to support. Given how recent the ban was, and that Alan Leifting appears to want to continue editing in the manner that resulted in the ban, I can't support lifting it at this time. I would however consider supporting a modification, if one were proposed, to make it a less expansive ban if there are areas covered by the ban that are beyond the scope of the controversial edits that precipitated it. Monty₈₄₅ 05:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out my edits are in the interests of the reader and follow the convention that I have seen in the thousands of categories that I have visited. The ban was instigated by editors who do not appear to realise that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As you point out yourself, there is no controlling guideline or policy, and you believe there is an unwritten convention that supports your edits, and lets assume your right (as I don't know). There are editors who disagree with your interpretation, and evidently feel the categories you think should be removed are valuable. As the convention is unwritten, no one is clearly right or wrong. The dispute continued to the point where a topic ban discussion was instigated, and passed. I don't think letting you resume the pattern of editing in dispute, without establishing clear consensus that the community supports the edits, is a n acceptable outcome. Technically your topic ban would prevent you from working to reach such a consensus, which is unnecessary and probably counter productive. Hypothetically, would you agree if we relaxed your topic ban, to participate in an RFC on the question of image/template categorization of the type in question, and to remain topic banned from removing such categorization (directly or indirectly) unless there is a clear consensus close in favor at the RFC? (No consensus would not be enough) Monty₈₄₅ 06:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already tried an RfC to try and get guidelines to reflect common practice. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories/Archive_3#Image_categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If it was fully discussed, and rejected, then you shouldn't be doing it. (Particularly in light of how strongly it was rejected) You obviously believe strongly that images should not be in shared categories with articles, but as there is no consensus supporting that position, removing images from categories shared with articles just because the category is shared is not acceptable, as its essentially edit warring. Even if someone disputes your position on one image, and you leave that one alone, if your allowed to continue making the edits to every other image categorization, your position becomes a fait accompli, despite the opposition to making it a guideline. Monty₈₄₅ 07:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that the stance of an editor is more important than consistency across Wikipedia? This should not be the case and this is that crux of the problem that we are dealing with here. Community consensus is to generally put images in image categories yet there is a handful of editors who do not realise this and insist on having random images in random categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the ban. It would seem clear, even from the discussion above, that alan doesn't understand that his preference to keep non articles out of categories which have articles is contrary to current practice and policy; and would appear to be refusing to follow that if the ban was lifted. - jc37 07:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, as I have outlined above, the contentious edits are not covered by policy or guidelines and they do follow current practice. There is obviously other editors out there who are doing exactly as I am otherwise there would be a far greater number of random images and templates scattered through the content categories. And so why am I being targeted with a topic ban? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Alan is objective and striving for consistency. Although this is frowned upon by the "community", it should not be and Alan should not be topic banned. - John Galt ✉ 16:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  Alan wasn't topic-banned for seeking consistency, he was topic-banned for editing against consensus, editing against the results of an RFC etc. To characterise the topic ban as you have is inaccurate and disingenuous. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as it's not a content dispute but a behavioural one. Alan, you performed a series of edits that other editors objected to. The normal process there would be to discuss the changes, work toward a consensus and then implement that consensus. The fact that when you resumed your edits, other editors still disagreed suggests that rather than actually coming to a consensus with the objecting editors, you were operating on the belief that you were correct and any objections were misguided or mistaken. That's not a content dispute, that's a failure to abide by normal consensus-building process. The RFC you linked should have provided a definitive response that what you believe should happen is not in concert with what other editors believe should happen.

Further, you admit that you've deliberately breached the topic ban since it was implemented. You said you did so because you believe you were improving the encyclopedia, which is nominally respectable, but your topic ban should have indicated to you that your judgement on what constitutes an improvement differs from others. Instead of being positive, it would seem that acting against your topic ban has instead reinforced the impression that you aren't interested in collaborating as part of a team, an activity that couldn't be more fundamental to the way Wikipedia works. I don't generally like forced contrition and making people kowtow to get their topic bans lifted, but at the minimum I think it's reasonable to expect people to understand why they've been placed under restrictions, and it doesn't seem to me that you really understand what about your actions led to this result. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that my behaviour has not been perfect so it is both a content dispute and a behavioural issue. If you were to wade through all of the interactions that I have had with editors who have commented on my category related edits you will see that some have a grudge against me for one reason or other. I may have stepped on their toes when I edited one of their favourite articles. That, and the fact that it seems the same group of editors are not aware of the prevailing (unwritten) consensus on image and template categorisation, has led to the topic ban. Also, I am fully aware of why I have restrictions placed on my editing but I am arguing that there is no reason for the ban.

Incidentally, I have just now come across yet another image from which I would like to remove a category. Category:Pig farming has one image in it. It is of a sow crate, a form of containment that is abhorrent to animal rights supporters. I am quite sure it is in the category because an editor is being overly enthusiastic about animal rights. I also support animal rights but to have the image in question in Category:Pig farming is actually creating bias. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • The editor in question refused to participate in the original topic ban discussion despite being requested to do so another editor.
  • The editor in question has stated clearly "When, and if, I am unblocked I have every intention of doing the very things for which I was blocked in order to improve Wikipedia."
  • The editor in question attempted an RFC which resulted in a clear and decisive opposition to his editing style. Despite this, the editor continues to "promote" the non-consensual approach.
  • The editor in question attempted an AN/I motion to ban me from his talkpage despite the fact I hadn't edited it since he requested that I didn't; a disruptive and time-consuming/wasting move.
  • The editor in question has been blocked five times since May 2012, once for harassment, twice for disruptive editing, and twice for topic ban violation. This is not the behaviour of an editor that can be trusted by the community.
  • The editor in question refuses to use generally accepted methods of communication (including talk page notifications for prods, including edit summaries) despite being asked to do so.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, your comments are more to do with some sort of grudge rather than rational reasoning. A quick look at some of your discussions shows that you can be reasonable.Here is my point by point reply:

• I did not "refuse" to participate in the original discussion. One editor was interested in an explanation but I was not sought out to supply it. Besides, surely partaking in a WP:AN discussion is like the accused being on the jury (I realise the irony here!). There is more discussion on it at my talk page
• Sorry about the honesty! So I wasn't particularly circumspect in what I said. And it is now haunting me. I said I want to improve Wikipedia. So what I wrong with that?
• The RfC was an attempt to get guidelines to match convention. Those who opposed the RfC obviously fail to realise that.
• I attempted to ban you from my talk page because you were disruptive, you were wasting my time, and the comments were not collegial. And what has that got to do with this topic ban discussion anyway?
• I regret the first block. I did some editing to a user page in a fit of rage and have since apologised for it. The other four were imposed because of wiki-law and have absolutely nothing to do with furthering the goal of Wikipedia. There are more to do with the misuse of power, from editors treating Wikipedia as a Massively multiplayer online role-playing game, and because of a range of unneeded human emotions and behaviour.
• My edit summaries are sufficient and there is no guidelines on it anyway. Also, edit summaries have absolutely nothing to do with this topic ban discussion so it is also a moot point. You were one of a handful of editors who wanted to impose something that was completely unnecessary. To say that I cannot be trusted by the community is highly offensive. Look at at all the mundane work I do in clearing backlogs, fixing vandalism, as well as all the time spent in writing articles, adding content and building the structure of Wikipedia. I also monitor my edits to make sure they are acceptable and I have observed that there is only a very small portion that elicit any sort of comment.

Your opinions appear to be clouded by emotion and therefore should not carry any weight in this discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinions appear to be completely out of whack with the community, as you have so adequately demonstrated above. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion and as I have stated your opinions are clouded by emotion (IMHO...). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Appears that others share my opinions, perhaps they're clouded by emotion too? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the editor in question seems to be unable to understand even gross violations of edit restrictions that are applied to other editors, therefore it is highly doubtful that they fully appreciate them when they apply to them.
• If you want your edit restriction removed, you need to appreciate their purpose and the disruption that they prevent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have already stated I am fully aware of why the topic ban in place, and as I have stated they should not be seen as disruptive. To clarify for other editors I made a recent comment on a discussion about automated edits by Rich Farmborough. In both my case and Rich's case (and many others) the goal of the project is ignored by some editors who treat Wikipedia as if it were some sort of game. Please, it is the readers who we must consider on every single edit we make. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The point is that you think it is OK for Rick to completely ignore his editing restrictions without first getting them lifted. So I don't think that in general you respect editing restrictions - until you do I don't think yours should be lifted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I will reiterate: it is the readers who we must consider on every single edit we make. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a community project, we are all volunteers and we should consider other editors as well. Something you clearly don't agree with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion and as I have stated your opinions are clouded by emotion. But would you agree that it is the readers that all editors should consider? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

All editors should consider all editors and all readers. Yes, even you Alan. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there something that I have done that suggests otherwise? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, all of the above. I'm not going over it again. Broken record. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

By all of the above do you mean the list of six bullet points for which I have supplied refutations? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't refute your busy block log, you can't refute a refusal to improve your communication with other editors, indeed you seem proud of your approach, you can't refute wasting the community's time dragging your attempt to ban me from your talkpage after I'd stopped editing there in any case. Anyway, I've made my opposition clear, and have nothing more to add. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I cannot refute that their are entries on my block log
• I cannot refute that I could improve my communication with other editors but that would apply to all but the most verbose of editors. So where do you draw the line between discussion until the cows come home and actually getting on and do some work around the shop?
• I had no way of knowing when you would stop your talk page stalking so I want to preempt it by banning you from my talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Your inability to communicate to other editors here has been communicated adequately to you many times. Therefore you should actively seek to improve your approach. As for the ban request, every time you ask somebody to do something, you'll just ensure it happens by opening a thread at AN? What a curious approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - the editor in question has broken the topic ban, and refused to discuss previous threads or at his talk page. It should stand and, if anything, be tightened. GiantSnowman 10:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

But have I done anything that has done the project a disservice? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And it appears that you have not read any of the discussions above. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read the above - yet more example of editors having to waste time cleaning up after you. GiantSnowman 10:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I will reiterate: have I done anything that has done the project a disservice? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The mass removal of valid categories, as well as the hours wasted trying to get you to stop. You have shown zero respect for the community or its consensus, and you still don't. GiantSnowman 10:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• The categories were not valid
• I also find the hours wasted to be frustrating
• Zero respect is a gross over-statement.

I will rephrase the question: have I done the reader a disservice? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

- No, the categories were valid, hence why you were admonished for your removal. When are you going to start listening to, and accepting, the views of the community? And yes, you have done the reader a dis-service, as categories provide useful navigation. GiantSnowman 11:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think Alan has good intentions, but his impact is disruptive. He is simply unwilling to listen to the community consensus when he thinks knows he is Right.

Alan, I'll address the rest of my remarks to you: this project is built on collegiate editing. When consensus doesn't go your way, you have to accept it. It happens every day to thousands of editors and if they all kept bullishly editing according to their own ideas and ignoring consensus, this place would be even more of a basket case than it is. You make a lot of excellent improvements to Wikipedia, but this blinkered edge to you undermines your good work. --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Microphone EL

Someone made an edit request to me outside of WP because the page is semi'ed. WP:COI / WP:EL across Wikimedia, WP:AGF. No idea what to do.

Someone, most likely User:Trashmethod, has just sent me a message on Facebook, asking me to add a link to his site to Microphone. He said that he'd like his page to become well-known, even though he doesn't rent out those microphones internationally. His adds to other Wikipedias seem to have gone uncontested, so I'm assuming the site adds value (apparently because of the nice photos of old microphones). I told him that he could file an edit request at Talk:Microphone and that I would not fulfil his request because I am not sure whether it conforms to WP:EL, and I would like more frequent visitors of Microphone to state their opionions. I could have left it at that. However, I wonder if his behaviour of visiting all the different Wikipedias and either adding the link himself or asking others to do it for him is acceptable. I have no idea how to handle this, especially since the issue cuts across Wikimedia sites. I couldn't find a Wikimedia admin (didn't look hard; took the easy route), so I'm asking here if this needs any additional attention. I've answered him on FB that I would contact administrators about the issue (that should hopefully take care of the notification question, but if you feel it is necessary---I don't---, you can additionally notify him on, I guess his talk page. Perhaps to make sure that it's the same person, of which I'm 99.999 % sure. So: What to do about this? From the way he approached me, I have no reason not to WP:AGF, although it is obviously a single-purpose account. --Nczempin (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Directing the person to ask on the article talk page is the safest course of action, and having them use a {{edit semi-protected}} request will allow a transparent on wiki response. As to the EL question, my sense is that a link probably would not be justified, yet there are a bunch of other similar links, so its understandable that someone with a site containing similar content would want theirs added as well. Really whats needed is for someone with expertise with EL policy to go in and clean out that EL section. Monty₈₄₅ 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did do exactly that, directing to ask on the talk page; although I am not sure if I gave enough information on how he should do it. I think I'll also bring this up myself on the article talk page, without adding the link myself. But what I'm really concerned with: What about those cross-WP edits? Is there some kind of Uber-Administrator forum to take care of things like this? Should I just ignore it and let each language WP handle the issue separately? Nczempin (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

About other wikipedias: Usually, I leave a message in English in the talk page. You can also click on the language clicks here at AN or at ANI, and leave a message in the corresponding administrator noticeboard.

About the website: It's a commercial website, it rents a small amount of microphones, with flattering descriptions about every model. This is of limited value for readers. Specially when you compare it to the searchable database that is already listed in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, apparently it is valuable because of the high-quality images. <shrug> Nczempin (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah, they are just flattering images to make the microphones look good, they are not intended to provide a good look at how the mic is built. I compared one microphone at random, the Neumann U67 in this person's website and in the searcheable database that we already link. The database has a bigger image where you can see more details (you need to click on the image to open the larger version). And it also has a second photo with the microphone dissasembled. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Iluvrihanna24: Standard Offer Request

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

---

Per WP:UTRS Request #4500, 82.24.227.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has requested the standard offer. I do not know anything about this case, so I am deferring it to AN. It does appear that six months have passed since the block was instated. The following is his request, which he agreed to be posted here:

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I believe I should be unblocked because I have already learnt my lesson. I have matured a lot over the many months I have been blocked and just want to start new and forget all of my old accounts. I have been observing editors whilst I have been blocked and know exactly what is accepted and what is not anymore. Although my block is another 6 months away, I would really liked to be unblocked now as I know I have learnt my lesson now and am just frustrated that I cannot correct certain pages. I know you may just think that I am being impatient but I have been waiting many many months and believe I have served my punishment time. Thanks.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Mainly music articles but any articles with mistakes such as grammar and non-up-to-date information.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Please unblock me, like I said I have matured extremely over my block period and really want another chance to prove myself. I will not constantly edit articles like before but just want to be able to edit some articles here and there. Thanks.

Reply message:

I would like to request a Standard offer if I may. I'm not sure where to find an administrator but I have read the rules clearly and as I said before I would like to move forward with my contributions to Wikipedia in a positive way for the future. I have waited almost 15 months for my lengthy block to expire and I know I have learnt my lesson and just want to move forward if I am given the chance. Thank you for your time.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So basically this means that Iluvrihanna24 is requesting an unblock? Or am I misunderstanding something? Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have updated the header to make that more clear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• First, this is clearly not a WP:CLEANSTART. They are either a) unblocked and used that account, b) unblock and the account can go through rename, or c) she is unblocked and permitted to create a new account, with proper permanent linkage to the old account. Second, have we verified they have not socked/evaded in the months since the block. Third, I see no real explanation of how they will avoid the behaviour that led to the block - what will really be different? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps their talk page access should be restored so they can reply? Nobody Ent 18:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have modified their block to allow them to post to this thread. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The last cycle with Iluvrihanna24 was actually as PhoenixJHudson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was unblocked with some fairly strict editing restrictions. He proved quickly unable to abide by them and was reblocked quickly (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhoenixJHudson&oldid=486670745). I'd support an unblock under the same restrictions as before. Iluvrihanna24's real problem is the addition of massive piles of gushing details and edit warring when people try to trim it back. His restriction was specifically tailored to that, in that he was forbidden to restore material that he had added and another editor had removed. In fairness to him, he wound up with major problems dealing with Calvin999, who has since been dealt a few blocks for edit warring. If we unblock Iluvrihanna24 with that restriction again, we will need to be vigilant to ensure that other Rihanna fans don't abuse him.

I am a bit disheartened that his unblock request doesn't acknowledge the existence of PhoenixJHudson, but it was 6 months and 3 weeks since that account edited.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'll conditionally support an unblock pending a checkuser to check for sock activity in the last 6 months. Assuming no socks, I'd support unblock with no restrictions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Given his history of edit warring and sock puppeting, I think unblocking him with no restrictions would be foolhardy.—Kww(talk) 07:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I have been allowed to give my opinion here now. I am glad that people are seeing my point about the user Calvin999 as that was a very big factor in my comments made before towards him as he reverted every edit I made which became extremely annoying. I did forget about my different identity's block periods but as kww stated the minimum it has been is almost 7 months which I believe is a very long time to have thought about my mistakes. As I have previously stated, if I was unblocked, I am not going to edit large chunks of information, all I would like to be able to do is correct certain parts of information that have bad grammar or have non-up-to-date information if I could. Thanks for your time. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my comments are seen here or not, are they coming through? Sorry. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are visible to everyone.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'm trying not to be persistent. I know all of the users here are holding the cards, I am just wondering how long this decision will take. As I said I am really not meaning to nag, it's just I've given my opinion and promise of what I will do if I am unblocked and would appreciate a reply considering your decision. Does there have to be a mutual decision between users? I've given all I can give to persuade you. Thanks. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed I am allowed to edit articles now without logging in. Last time my block ran out and I began editing again, users didn't believe me and I got blocked again even though my ban had expired. I am notifying you now to say that it is allowing me to edit, so to show you I have changed I will edit only a few articles. Please don't view this as me violating my block as earlier I was blocked from editing by my IP address and now it is letting me. I am only doing what I have been wanting to for several months. Thanks. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not letting me edit anymore as it says there is a filter saying my edits are unconstructive. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no Don't edit articles yet. You were only unblocked to post here and on your talk page User talk:82.24.227.215. The decision might take a day or two. Nobody Ent 23:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've was reinstating the block while Nobody Ent was responding here. I'll copy any of Iluvrihanna24's edits to this discussion if needed. It is this kind of thing that makes me extremely hesitant to unblock without an extremely short leash: an eagerness to change things while not apparently reading fairly simple statements directed at him.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Note as well that despite it being explained to him multiple times, he never has accepted that he is not supposed to edit while his account is blocked.—Kww(talk) 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think 82 needed to be blocked ... 82 didn't actually edit any articles and I think King of Hearts set up a filter Special:AbuseFilter/201 to prevent him from editing anywhere but here or there. Nobody Ent 03:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No details per WP:BEANS, but the filter doesn't block everything that a block does. Filter 201 does show that he tried to edit.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't go so far as oppose an unblock, but I've striken my support. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional support The impression I'm getting from 82 is much more of lack of understanding rather than malice. If and only if they were willing to take a mentor and a volunteer could be found would it make sense to unblock. Nobody Ent 13:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• In reply to this comment made on the AN page, I am definitely willing to take on a mentor or volunteer if that is what it takes to be unblocked, definitely. Thanks. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of an objection, I'll unblock with conditions similar to those I imposed last time (with some clarification based on the last go around):

1. Only the Iluvrihanna24 account will be unblocked.
2. No alternate accounts, and no anonymous editing.
3. Cannot restore any material that he has added and another editor has removed. This includes material added in the past by any sockpuppet accounts.
4. All additions of material must include inline citations to reliable sources.
5. Violations will result in a one-week block on the first occurrence, a one-month block on the second, and returned to an indefinite block on the third.

I'll do this on Nov 8 unless someone says not to before then. I'll set the block on 82.24.227.215 back to a soft-block at that time.—Kww(talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) —Kww(talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Restored this section because it archived one day before I expected, and one day before my deadline for opposing comments.—Kww(talk) 01:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Unblock, stop biting and stop pointless blocks/bans. - John Galt ✉ 15:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - Based on the fact that the editor went right to changing articles while their unblock was still being discussed, I don't think they've grasped the situation. If someone is willing to mentor them, I'd support an unblock. I think it's a bad idea to allow them in unsupervised, for now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Iluvrihanna24 unblocked

I've unblocked him with the conditions noted above. His editing restrictions are in his talk-page editnotice so that all editors discussing things with him should be aware to contact me if there's trouble. I would appreciate anyone else's assistance. The only real trouble I anticipate is the restriction against re-adding material: we have to watch against other editors in the area that game that restriction to essentially prevent him from editing.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Civil war may break out soon

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.

---

See here. I suggest we remove ArbCom from power right now, install a caretaker ArbCom and hold elections for a new ArbCom based on a different set of rules later. Count Iblis (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A caretaker ArbCom? Who would that consist of? Doc talk 00:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You may as well just name Count Iblis dictator, because he won't be happy with whatever else we did come up with. Resolute 00:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That needs to be discussed here. So, are there any volunteers? Count Iblis (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Count Iblis, this absolutely is not going to happen here. I suggest you go stir drama elsewhere (or even better, go write an article!). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not stirring drama, I'm merely pointing to a problem that may well escalate into a full blown civil war if no action is taken. Count Iblis (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing an elected body through a coup d'état and installing a puppet regime until the next election would seem to me to be... civil war. Doc talk 01:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes it would. Good thing that's not going to happen. With thanks to all the participants; let's take Ponyo's advice. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Request clarification

Hi guys. I'm actually unclear about whether Noticeboards, that have been initially set up to coordinate editing work on common topics, can be used by members to report disruptive editors. Would that be considered canvassing or simply a good-faith attempt at reducing disruptive editing? I take a specific example of Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (but this is just one example; the issue is more generic) and am requesting for inputs so that I'm able to understand how to proceed in the future. Thanks in advance. Regards. Wifione ^Message 01:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a neutrally worded message to the India board would be canvassing, as it appears to have a reasonable number of editors, some of whom are occasional contributors to the more general noticeboards. If editors felt a community ban was needed, the discussion should be held here WP:AN. A generic answer would be bureaucratic, I think it would depend on the amount of activity of the board and the composition of its contributors. For example, I wouldn't trust the Wikipedia talk: Noticeboard for Tolkien fan-boys -- you know how those people are. Nobody Ent 02:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nobody Ent. Will take your views into account. Regards. Wifione ^Message 06:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bram Stoker

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 think Bram Stoker need some protection.--Szente (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please take this to WP:RFPP in the future. Best, NW (Talk) 04:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do it that way next time. I didn't know this page before. --Szente (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Bug in template "In title"

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

---

• A fault has developed in the template "In title". Currently, {{intitle|Beatles}} or {{in title|Beatles}} causes a search for pages whose titles contain "Intitle:Beatles", not for pages whose titles contain "Beatles". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  I just tested it, and it appears to be working as intended. It does indeed search for "intitle:Beatles", but this is part of the Wikipedia search engine's syntax, not an erroneous search string. The actual pages being returned are ones with "Beatles" in the title, not "intitle:Beatles" (or at least it was when I tried it). Is this consistent with what you saw when you used the template? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  Yup, works for me. The first hit on the result page is The Beatles, and the second is Beatles (song). A search for pages whose titles contain "Intitle:Beatles" would produce no results, I imagine. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Electoral Commission RfC

A three-member Electoral Commission was proposed and gained consensus during the most recent Arbitration Committee Election Request for comment. We need volunteers for the commission, and comments on their suitability from all editors. Details are found Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Electoral_Commission --Tznkai (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech disruption

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

1. Freedom of speech
2. Portal:Freedom of speech

This user has unilaterally moved multiple Freedom of speech pages to "Freedom of the press", with zero prior discussion or consensus. Can an admin please move these unilateral page moves back where they were, as they've disrupted an entire portal I was working on, Portal:Freedom of speech, to now be a bunch of redlinks???

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Please note that Rancalred (talk · contribs) has been warned at User talk:Rancalred in the past at least four previous times for vandalism. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: It looks like much of the disruption has been fixed. Suggest an admin block for disruption this user with history of vandalism and multiple user talk page warnings. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur on need for admin block. See also this page Rancalred created as part of this bizarre wave of Freedom of expression-related moves. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 18:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done, resolved, blocked by admin Beeblebrox (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Niemti, community ban proposal

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

---

Moved from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Nobody Ent 15:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Some may recall this incident: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning. User:HanzoHattori, banned and indef-blocked in 2008 for chronic incivility and an inability to work with others, was contentiously allowed to return under a new name: User:Niemti. User:MuZemike warned: If he gets unbanned/unblocked, I'm sure we will be discussing numerous ANI incidents, culminating with another ban proposal, within a year. So here it is, 3-4 months later. Niemti has displayed the same incivility and failure to assume good faith and more: particularly unashamed WP:OWN violations, as well competency issues. These have continued (last couple of days: [58], [59], [60]) despite a recent discussion in which multiple users voiced concerns (and to which he responded with little but taunts). An RfC/U containing the appropriate evidence has been certified and listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti. Niemti has swiftly stated that he will not respond: He called it tl;dr, and this is "the first and last time" he edited the RfC (and not to provide an endorsed response). I don't want to unilaterally withdraw the RfC (if this is possible), not least because I don't know where to put the evidence otherwise, but it is abundantly clear that it is not going to achieve anything.
• I thus propose a community ban of Niemti, per the fact he already has been banned for the same issues, and per the fact the supports of his return contained caveats such as Look, if he comes back and takes advantage, I'll be the first to kick him in the ribs - hell, I'll be happy to make the block myself. (User:Ironholds). Failing that, editing restrictions: at a minimum the restrictions described in the RfC, but preferably a topic ban from video game characters, and possibly also GAN. Evidence for the multitude of policy violations and the complete lack of respect for others, endorsed by other users, can be found on the RfC page (please do read it). The only counterpoint Niemti has provided is his vast edit history. Aside from the fact his editing lacks competency (the GAs he boasts of were either cleaned up by their reviewers or received rubber-stamped non-reviews), no amount of edits can excuse these violations, nor driving other users to edit nowhere near him. bridies (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My experience of Niemti has been pretty much limited to Another World, although his name seems rather familiar, so maybe elsewhere too, but I have to say I see nothing wrong with his work there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ban proposals are made at WP:AN and not here at ANI. Won't work here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• They're made in both places and multiple bans have been enacted on ANI. Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. If it bothers an editor they're welcome to move it to WP:AN Nobody Ent 15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, oh wow. Like I'm going to respond to a barrage of false accusations (like the one that I responded) and things taken out of context. Hilariously, some people seem to be annoyed because I'm doing too many Good Articles about video games (yes, you heard it right - only this week GAs of my were Another World (video game), Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth and Wolfenstein 3D, with about two dozen more coming through right now). --Niemti (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse as non-admin - per rationale given by User:Bridies. While some of this user's GANs have passed, many have resulted in stalemates due to Niemti not being willing to make requested changes such as not updating sources with reliable replacements. I don't like to throw out the baby with the bath water, but it seems like there's more water here than baby. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not "some", but most. Plus 3 out of 4 A-class assessments (the remaining 1 being on hold, and you know it). --Niemti (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: additional site ban, topic ban, and lesser restrictions. After reviewing the multitude of blocks, investigations, AN/ANI/ANEW reports, and warnings, I also concluded that Niemti's recent conduct reiterates a long-term pattern of belligerence, condescension, and incivility towards others. Mephistophelian (contact) 15:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

Hey, should I tell you about my first accounts? You would dig up on me something from 2004 and 2005 too. So relevant. --Niemti (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)--~~

• Support based on history, behavior documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti, and refusal to participate in RFC/U. Nobody Ent 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And I already told you how it was laregly just false accusations and things taken out of context. Which it was. And cherry-picked from tens of thousands of edits in thousands of articles. Instead of believing this, maybe you should check yourself (that's 500 last week, mostly finishing touches on the recent GAs and preparations for the new ones, in particular The King of Fighters XIII, Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) and Shank (video game)). You can check then the earlier 500 too (that would be probably something like the previous week), and so on. --Niemti (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ironic Support considering the WP:ABF that I was subjected to last week regarding this exact same editor. The battle mentality, "not me" attitude and "I don't have to answer to the community" statements pretty much say it all. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - poor past conduct and does not seem willing to deal with any issues which have been raised again. GiantSnowman 16:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Issues", ha. Especially this "Oh no, he's making too many GAs!" thing (it was in Video Games Portal or something). Like, what? Jesus Christ, lol, WHAT. (Want a hint? If you don't want to review them, for whatever reason, then just don't do it. Like I don't want to review, and guess what - I don't review.) I'm basically being attacked for this very reason. I'm making to many good articles (literally, Good Articles). Funny thing is I'm not even interested in drama. All my talk pages (including my own talk), portals, etc. activity is less than 10% of my edits (so much for supposed "battle mentality"). More than 9 out of all 10 of my edits is tirelessly editing content, every day. This week alone I achieved 3 GAs. I listed them above. They're actually good articles, I think. But instead of congratulations or barnstars or whatever, or just respect, I get all this shit. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Producing good content is not a get-out-of-jail free card, to be waves about whenever your incivility and attitude (as you are again demonstrating here) becomes disruptive. GiantSnowman 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What I'm "demonstrating here"? Like I'm getting all this, yes, shit ("ironic support"), while nobody is listening to me, again coming with stuff from years ago, or just believing (onca again) false accusations and things taken out of context? And the "funny" thing is - "producing good content" was really the thing against me. Seriously, it was. Supposedly, I was doing too many of these GAs (Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Video games are these waiting currently, and I'm continously working on them if they're not simply finished already, by me, as you can check in their histories). It all started with this, like last week or something. I was like "what? no of course I'm going to continue, and I'm not going to review, don't review too if you don't want to do it" (it's not like I'm forcing anyone to do it). Then, some people from this portal decided to spend a lot of time and energy to dig up dirt on me (even if it's laughable or false, like this thing that I commented on, no matter, it was just piled it out in this huge thread). I didn't even know they want to actually ban me. That's just incredible and I can't believe it. --Niemti (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban (non-admin) - Agree with the concerns by Bridies the nominator, Bwilkins, Nobody Ent and Teancum. The sum total of his battleground mentality and incivility have been staggering and has unfortunately exhausted our patience. With that said, enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Civility is equally as important as quality mainspace edits, and while the latter is good, it can't overshadow battleground mentality tied with the former. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Civility is equally as important as quality mainspace edits no it freakin' ain't, and that attitude is exactly where this project went wrong. Encyclopedia. Not Facebook. Volunteer Marek  01:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Masem is a long term, good faith editor, and I'm pretty certain he doesn't treat or view Wikipedia like social media. He means that it's virtually impossible to work on any sort of collaborative aspect of the encyclopedia with him. Let me ask you this: Have you tried working with Niemti before? Have you tried to have a discussion about policy with him before? Have you tried to take an article in a direction even minutely different than Niemti's vision for it? If/hen you have, perhaps you'll understand what we're is getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Then s/he should know better. As to the loaded bad faithed question - " Have you tried working with Niemti before? Have you tried to have a discussion about policy with him before? Have you tried to take an article in a direction even minutely different than Niemti's vision for it?" - the answer is yes, I believe I have. And I had no problems, it's all in how you approach people. Volunteer Marek  19:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And let me ask YOU: did you read what Chaheel Riens wrote up here? No, I didn't ask him to come here and say this. I didn't ask ANYONE to come in defense. Morever: I didn't even tell about this to anyone at all. I sure could, but I didn't, my choice. That's unlike you, the clique, who thought it's fine to gang up on me in an organized manner (guess it's this "collaborative aspect" at work). And hey, just why do you have (collaboratively) had to quickly resort to personal attacks and telling lies about me? Like about me supposedly breaking almost "every" ("every") Wikipedia policy. Well, that would indeed make me an absolutely horrible editor. One small problem though - it's not true. But it worked, people bought this, so congratulations. You can be proud of yourselves. I guess. --Niemti (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep on going on about "It's not true!!", but what exactly is your counter-argument? That you're lovely to work with, and somehow mysteriously misunderstood by the 10 people you seem to interact with the most? Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

My counter-argument to what? Who are those "10 people"? A majority of the people who posted here are all in the clique? Then I don't even recognise most of them. So much of "working wioth them the most". (Btw: I don't even really work with you. There was only Yuna and you came there.) --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that civility is one of the five pillars, I'm pretty sure acting civil is on par with quality editing. (This is the entire crux of the Malleus Arbcom case, IIRC...) --MASEM (t) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What "battleground" are you talking? Where is it, exactly? (I don't even hang on you portal.) If somebody told me I should have taken this thing seriosuly, I would. "Request for comment" didn't sound to me like a serious matter (I never heard about such a thing before), especially since I was only told about it as a "part of procedure". --Niemti (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I called this whole situation "hilarious" at first, but now it's just Kafka-esque. I'm being basically lunched by the Video Games Portal crew for being too ambitious for their liking. For working too much (like already more than half of Sjones23's edits above in just 7 months, even as his are counted from over 7 years) and also, as strange as it may sound, for my liking of the articles on fictional characters (besides all the other articles), which that many of them despise for some irrational reasons. The rest is just an excuse, and seems that I myself gave them excuse with my misunderstanding of "request for comment" thing. --Niemti (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's the deal: A user RFC is an attempt to come up with a voluntary solution to perceived issues with a particular user's contributions. It is considered the final stage in voluntary dispute resolution, if it fails to achieve a voluntary agreement the next step is usually a filing at ArbCom or a request like this one. As a user who was previously banned and was extended a massive amount of good faith when the community allowed you back in even though you were actively evading your ban at the very moment discussion of lifting it was taking lace I would expect you to realize that your behavior afterward would basically need to be above reproach and that any concerns brought to your attention would be responded to in a civilized manner. Of course by letting you get back in through the back door like that the community may have sent you the message that we don't actually take such things seriously and you can flaunt and ignore community standards of user behavior safe in the knowledge that there will always be someone there to make excuses for you, so there is blame to spread around on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I actually "flaunt and ignore community standards of user behavior". I'm not saying I'm perfect, but this is totally all blown out of proportions. Even couting the accusations towards me that are simply absurd (in my opinion), factually incorrect, or taken out of context, it's all a very, very small part of my activity, and what exactly was supposedly the most serious thing? Like, me calling names against anyone? Maybe I threatened someone in any way? Did I falsely accuse someone? Any incidents of vandalism? I don't know, what was that? --Niemti (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

See the RFC/U - there are examples where you have a combative stance on article changes that act like article ownership, and resistance to take suggestions from others. Those are just as bad as vandalism and false accusations towards the constructive group efforts to improve the work. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No. No. "Article ownership" (supposed), on exactly how many of the thousands of articles edited by me, and where in nothing but good faith (like maybe some POV stuff or something)? Where exactly it it written "resistance to take suggestions from others" is now a such a so-serious, bannable offense? (If so I'm going to suggest something to you now and you better do it.) --Niemti (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN and YOUR MIRROR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"YOUR MIRROR"? Seriously? Ha, yee YOUR MOM. (Look, I'm being "battleground" now, oh no. I should have taken such a polite "suggestions from others", who want to ban me, without complaining.) That was an excellent list of my supposed most serious offenses, too. --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Every editor, probably at one time or another, acting in a way counter to WP:OWN with regards to an article they have spent a lot of time editing and preparing. Alone or isolated, that's not a problem. But when it happens repeatedly and after the user's been cautioned against such actions when others are trying to improve said articles in good faith, then that starts becoming specifically disruptive which is the primary point here. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no solid consensus on this, but the community seems to be heading away from the notion that making good edits makes up for chronic incivility or combativeness. To make an imperfect analogy, let's say a mechanic was sometimes putting water in his customer's fuel tanks so that they would need to come back and spend some more money. If he only did it 10% of the time and used proper fuel the other 90% of the time does that make it ok? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And to make a more perfect analogy, I say I'm not displaying "chronic incivility or combativeness". I even actually generally avoid portals, Administrators' whatever, Articles for whatever, etc. It's also because I'm just not really interested in discussing things. --Niemti (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And that's one of your problems! Wikipedia is a collaborative project, this means you have to discuss things, even if you'd rather not!--86.156.212.221 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I edit articles, I don't discuss articles for deletions and stuff. There is no requirements for doing any of this. That's not "one of my problems". It's not a problem at all. (Also, I was here to argue with people, about anything, I'd do this instead of editing articles. And guess what.) --Niemti (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I must say that was an excellent list of those most serious things (all zero of them), and especially the ones that I didn't try some middle ground solution or just gave up or even eventually agree with these all-bidding "suggestions from others" (as every users need to readily agree with "suggestions from others" or else it's a ban time). OK, gotta go. I guess I'm going to leave it with the previous comment by Masem (complete with "just as bad as vandalism and false accusations" and hey, he was serious), which really shows the absurdity of this. --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Refusing to work with the community on one's behavior, even if one thinks they are 100% in the right, is usually also taken as a sign of battleground mentality that is harmful to the project. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What? I got a "request for comment". So I even actually commented. It didn't say anything about how it's "explain all this or else". It basically didn't say anything at all. (And I really need to go.) --Niemti (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above, yes ... yes you do need to. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So I can. I just didnąt understand it was serious, or what was it at all. But thatąs when I'm back, because seriously I need to go. --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's serious in the sense that not complying is an implicit sign of not wanting to cooperate. If you showed interest in cooperating on the RFC to understand how to improve this behavior, I would not be surprised to see this suggestion to ban you called off. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Which really sounds like a blackmail, but anyway. So what do what do you exactly except me to do supposedly? --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: It's really not necessary for us normal editors to label our positions as "non-admin" -- I'm sure the mop wielder who closes this will intrinsically know to give our positions greater weight without the hint. Nobody Ent 22:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. When I look at topics on admin noticeboards, all of the non-admin comments are different colors and blink. The colors vary based on the season.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. No doubts, Niemti has certain (mis)communication problems. For example, he recently reverted a few my edits withot talking. So what? Is it such a big deal? I think Niemti must take a serious wikibreak. But his comments look to me mostly like sarcasm, rather than serious personal offences. I did not see User:AnddoX (who Miemti allegedly offended) complaining about it anywhere. Does anyone here feel himself so much personally offended that he can not forgive fellow editor? My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

He already had a "serious Wikibreak": 4 years, after being banned for the same stuff. He has barely made it 4 months before intractably putting himself in the same position. His recent ongoing incivility ranges from I told you to stop fucking up my articles to if you do want actually contribute, go and try to make Ryu's article a GA [...] Which I did it with Ayane [...] nearly 300 edits from this account alone, mostly in the previous month, and now you want to mess with it. As for "So what?" This is the second time in barely as many months I've had to waste huge, RL-damaging amounts of my time and concentration putting together evidence for an RfC/ANI, just to keep the content areas which I enjoy functioning normally (the other instance was User: Jagged 85; I see Niemti has used the exact same defence of "cherry-picking") as he did. Personally I'm strongly tempted to finally edit Wikipedia no further after this: how many more editors who break every other policy except WP:CIVIL (Jagged), or damn near every policy (Niemti) but add big green numbers (though not quality, nor even readable content), need I/we indulge for years, through multiple ban/RfCs/ANIs before finally having to go through a time-devouring, laborious due process to (maybe) have them banned. I've only managed about 20 successful GAs and an FA, many of them collaborative, over the last few years. I'm sure I wouldn't be missed, next to Niemti. bridies (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I had no problems while editing aricles about Chechen warlords together with him. It looks like editing videogames is more dangerous. A topic ban from editing videogames? A temporarily block to chill out? My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously video games is a subject that is chill subject ESPECIALLY compared to dealing with nationalist editors on politically charged subjects. And what Bridies says is not only lies, it's all his personal dislike, after I told him how I don't like him (literally, I told him "I don't like working with you, and I don't even you, anymore"). As I said. He actually said this: "I've had to waste huge, RL-damaging amounts of my time and concentration putting together evidence for an RfC/ANI, just to keep the content areas which I enjoy functioning normally." What? While there other editors can say, quote (for example, very recent), After the second look, I see the article much improved. I have no further comments, so I pass the article. Good job! after I did this much improvement indeed, and these changed don't even include my previous edits to this article, tons of them ("wasting my time", too - maybe he should have "waste huge, RL-damaging amounts of my time and concentration" on editing some articles, which almost all I do). That's quite a difference, no? --Niemti (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Until I read this thread, I was unfamiliar with Niemti. I have looked at the diffs provided by the OP. I have looked at the RFC. I have read the extended discussion here with Niemti. I have not reviewed Niemti's history. What I have looked at seems to be consistent. An editor who creates good content and who relies on that work to thumb their nose at anyone who interferes with their work. The arrogance, the sarcasm, the mockery, the condescension. Despite what Niemti might think, they're not indispensable. See My Fair Lady song, "Without You".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - While he does contribute a lot, he also wastes a lot of the community's time with the issues he's constantly bringing up. He is almost always condescending and rude to virtually anyone who interacts with him. There's just no reason for him to go out of his way to be so difficult. I've told him several times before that his bad attitude would overshadow any good he does here, and yet he continues on without hesitation, so he's clearly aware of what he's doing, and has no intention of stopping. If he intends to bless the world with his video game knowledge, (He likes to make claims that he's irreplaceable.) I think he needs to start up his own solo blog or something, because he clearly cannot handle working on a collaborative project. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - honestly, this appears to be a bunch of "oh noes, how dare he disagree with me!?!" kind of complaining. If there are issues of ownership they appear to be with the OTHER parties. Over at the RfC I see the statement "Most (though not all) of these are relatively minor, but should be considered as part of the broader problems with Niemti's editing style." - when someone first admits that the given diffs are "relatively minor" but then tries to string up the subject anyway based on "part of a broader problem" that sets off the bullshit detectors screaming. Yes, there is some arrogance and (horror of horrors!) sarcasm, but it's not like any of these are that hard to deal with ... if you're willing to do your part in the AGF equation. Volunteer Marek  01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not "some arrogance". It's deluded, megalomaniacal hubris. And when I said they were "relatively minor", I meant in relation to the gratuitous ownership-claiming and incompetency. As for "assuming good faith" and "dealing with it", as Sergecross said: I'd love to see you review half a dozen of "his" video game GANs, and make dozens upon dozens of copy edits to "his" articles, as I did, and then see what your "bullshit detector" says. How would you defend such reverts as: "I told you to stop fucking up my articles, didn't I?", "thanks, I prefer it this way", "nope" and then "really, no", "I told you to stop doing that", " if you do want actually contribute, go and try to make Ryu's article a GA [...] Which I did it with Ayane [...] nearly 300 edits from this account alone, mostly in the previous month, and now you want to mess with it", "It was all quite well thought by me, see? Now, if you have something to CONTRIBUTE to the article..." and so on? My own "bullshit detector" is "screaming" right now. bridies (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"deluded, megalomaniacal hubris" - go call me some more names, come on. And you forgot to "inform" it was in a discussion with a dude who thought that what I said to him was "such a blasphemy" (which I guess was not "deluded"?). And you also "forgot" to show examples of my supposed "chronic incivility or combativeness". Like, I'm right now watching 1,281 pages. It's mostly articles. That was one example (same guy, two pages, of one I let it go (Ryu's, precisely) and on another on which I discussed on its talk page, by presenting a number of arguments). It's on [61] "deluded, megalomaniacal hubris". Oh, and uh-oh, reviewing my GAs, somehow all the other have no problems. Only you. Only this week, 3 reviewers somehow didn't had such horrible ass pains like you apparently did: [62], [63], [64] (and those included no prior edit wars in these articles, of course). What you do now, is only your personal dislike, after I told that "I don't like you anymore". My own "bullshit detector" is "screaming" right now. - great, mine too. --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Also: or damn near every policy (Niemti) - he's just lying. Lying, lying, lying, lying. I see any lie about me can now go unchecked, and without consequences. People will believe it, even! I'm being, groundlessly, demonized in such an absurd way that I'm just short of words now. As I said it several times, it's incredible, and getting more every new moment as it goes. --Niemti (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with Sergecross73's argument and that of threadstarter. When you fail to even collaborate with other editors just because you're "not interested in them," you're already a liability to the project. Sergecross made a point about Niemti's condescending behavior - it's already evident in how he responds here! When you take a Wikibreak for as long as Niemti has but you still exhibit the same kind of BS behavior, it goes to show you haven't used the time to reevaluate your worth to the project. Get him out of here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What? What kind of quote was this "not interested in them"? "BS behavior" - LIKE WHAT? Huh? Of the last say 1,000 of my edits, go and show my, like, 10 (supposedly) worst offenses (out of 100 offesnses I guess, like in "an imperfect analogy" above with "10% water"). Clearly those people (VG Portal clique, which I'm not part of) convinced you I'm supposedly cruising Wikipedia (which is supposedly "battleground" for me, the word "battleground" repating so many times) looking for a fight or something, so it should be easy. That's [65] and [66], 1,000 sample edits since October 23. What you will ACTUALLY see, is mostly working on creating Good Articles. A lot. As of this thread, I have to deal with people who, groundlessly, say my GOOD ARTICLE WORK is "as bad as vandalism" and apparently people agree with this absurd, who call me "deluded, megalomaniacal hubris", what the FUCK is this? Go, call it "such a blasphemy" too, it's just this level of, yes, "BS behavior" right now. Just incredible --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. You forget where you said those words? You know Niemti, all you've been doing in this thread these past 48 hours has been nothing more than the act of a editor desperate to avoid being banned. You are certainly fond of replying to everyone who either Support or Oppose this ban proposal, but frankly, I can only see nothing more than delusions and revisionism on your part not to mention bragging about what you've done for the project (you definitely lifted your benches hard on that). I shake my head at your above response to me. I'm not gonna dignify that by deconstructing it. Off you go. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban an unacceptable battlefield mentality is very much on display in this thread - and especially the post immediately above. Niemti, if you make any further posts like that you're going to be blocked regardless of the outcome of this discussion to impose a ban. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And how will you call the BLATANT LIES being told about me by bridges? Yes, lies. Yes, he's lying. Should I repeat it? And also he's outright INSULTING me. It's, somehow, accepted. No one says a word. The term "BULLSHIT" is circling around, but it's not about his lies and insults. There are ABSURD accusations towards me, and yet they're accepted, while no one is listening to me. Except when it finally gets a rise from me, then yeah, now people take a note. How is this right? --Niemti (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's my "battlefield mentality" to ask them to show the SUPPOSED worst examples of my oh-so bad behavior (even if cherry-picked out of tens of thousands of edits in thousands of articles in only 7 months, including zero instances of vandalism, including always trying to mantain absolutely NPOV conduct (as much as it's possible), including making several Good Articles in such a short time, and getting numerous others to B-Class too, and creating several (that's not even including re-creating, that was many more), and uploading lots of pictures, and so on) and yet it's not "battlefield mentality" to answer with "YOUR MIRROR" (yes, in caps) to this. No one said a word about it, of course. It was not "battlefield mentality", it was peacefield mentality from Bwilkins (who said he's holding a grudge against me, but I have no idea why and what was that, I just don't know this person). What's with this thread? I told it once, I say again: it's a pure Kafka-esque stuff. --Niemti (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there ... who said I was holding a grudge? I was given shit by my fellow editors for holding you to the same standards (as you're a longtime editor) as I hold others. Nothing at all about a grudge (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ironic Support considering the WP:ABF that I was subjected to last week regarding this exact same editor." - that's how I interpreted this cryptic message. I seriously have no idea who you are. --Niemti (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. I especially like your response there where you degrade the individual to below-human status because 8 of their 9 edits were possibly vandalism. You really just cemented my Support for this ban by making me go back and actually see your response. Your dismissiveness of simple, human-relations based suggestions is appalling. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

They were not "possibly" vandalism. It was - "8 of their 9 edits were vandalism", factually stated, nothing "possibly" about them. And someone even confronted you on this. And the other one was basically proudly saying what this VANDALISM ONLY ACCOUNT was doing - he posted a definition of trolling. And your reasoning here is "appalling". You're still, continously defending the vandal(!!!!!), you want to ban me for reporting vandal! The Trial - Wikipedia edition. It's just getting ever more crazy. --Niemti (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving me right - and I think you now finally understand my comment. Someone "calling" me on it was WP:ABF - you're justifying the fact that you refused to do them the courtesy of advising them that you had reported them to this very board, because you considered them sub-human. I'm not defending any vandal - I'm defending due process and human courtesy. I think you just put the final nail in. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Also, you lie, too. And there are tons of "due process and human courtesy" towards me here. But that was my last post here. --Niemti (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you finally did that a significant time after I prodded you to do so. Now that you have resorted to personal attacks, I fear this will go even worse than it already was (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's roughly as much of a "personal attack" as the other 4 people who told you the same thing right away but before you also used this as an inane "reason" to get me banned me for. No, I have no respect for trolls. There is nothing to respect. But neither, I don't think they're "sub-human", that just your imagination, and I never used such a racist language on Wikipedia anywhere (btw, just yesterday I did some better photos for Wikipedia with a memomorial in place of a concentration camp where "sub-humans" were held 1943-45). OK, I'm done with posting for today. --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I know I really shouldn't be replying, but I do appreciate the Kafka allusions. For only in either Kafka or on Wikipedia could one bring someone, banned for failing to assume good faith, to ANI for same thing only be told not only that one must eat that person's insults, but should assume good faith while doing so. bridies (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Here, I like to show how absurd this thing is. Bridies (WHO IS LYING) really, really wants to ban me, and it's because of my and his (volunteer, it was 100% his own initiative) work on some of my GA nominations. Some he passed, some he failed, anyway he holds a stupid grudge against me ever since then. But now I want to show you something. That's also addressing the claims of it's virtually impossible to work on any sort of collaborative aspect of the encyclopedia with him and he clearly cannot handle working on a collaborative project from Sargecross73:

In this thread, I already showed you the 3 GA that passed this week. Without complaints. One of them even commented in this very thread. Let me quote it: My experience of Niemti has been pretty much limited to Another World, although his name seems rather familiar, so maybe elsewhere too, but I have to say I see nothing wrong with his work there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And yes, those were the articles that passed just week. Those are GAs that are currently under review (not counting those that are awaiting a review), in chronological order:

• [67] and here's there's my work on to adress the issues (about new 40 edits)

• [68] - I'm not sure it's going to pass (despite "Continue the good work" comment from the reviewer), but one thing for sure - the article is much better now (my work on it in meantime, about 85 new edits) which is an important positive impact, even if it's not going to end with a GA.

• [69] - I'm not doing much, but also just no issues were raised at all, yet.

• [70] - awaiting a second reviewer, but the first one sees nothing wrong with the article.

So, is it really SUCH a problem with me? Or, maybe, rather it's with Bridiesm, like with his LIES about me here. (Somewhere up there, he's actually compaing how his efforts to ban me are wasting his precious, precious time.) Why do you people accept this so easily? Maybe now, for once, ANYONE will listen to my side of the story. --Niemti (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. No worse than Malleus from what I see above. And the editors who want him banned for incivility using expressions like "deluded, megalomaniacal hubris" strikes me as a bad case of WP:KETTLE. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Incivility is merely one of the reasons he should be banned. Though do feel free to put together evidence that I'm anywhere near as bad as Niemti (you might get a feel for how much of a pain it is). The comparison to Malleus is useless: not only is Niemti infinitely worse than him, in terms of content creation, Niemti is no Malleus. bridies (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nor are you. Or am I. If "not as good as Malleus" is a criterion for banning, none of us would be here. Absurd logic. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And it's entirely your own absurd logic. "Not as good as Malleus" is merely the logic for not comparing him to Malleus. The logic for banning him is given at the top of the thread. bridies (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

These "other reasons". But hey, I will try. For starters. The reasons/aspects bridies is "worse" (as of "infinitely", that's just some sillyness from his shock-vocabluary) than me: bridies is currently prone to be seriously abusing other users by outright insulting them (by which I mean calling them in very deregatory terms) and lying about them, even while on administrators' noticeboard. That surely is a display of "combative stance" and/or "battleground mentality", and that's something that bridies don't even does in his defense - it's just to attack. Proof: this very thread. Is it something that bridies does often (define: "often"): I have no idea. And now someone else can carry on and examine bridies for a greater scrutiny, because that's not how I spend my time (unlike some others). Also unfortunately I couldn't compare bridies to Malleus because I don't know who Malleus is. --Niemti (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

All you people, take note, please. Bwilkins "reasoning" is I was was being "degrading" towards the "alleged" vandal (I wasn't even really, I just called the things by name while reporting this - it was vandalism-only account, it was trolling), but he thinks the vandal was not "degrading", not towards AIDS victims and homosexuals or against Han Chinese people. And so he only banned the vandal for only 1 week, and still defends him (no, really he does), but now he wants to ban me, for my reporting of the vandal - "ironically", he says. It's an excellent example of what's going in this thread. But people just automatically accept and "agree" with this (quote: Agree with the concerns by Bridies the nominator, Bwilkins) even as they don't even know what is it about (even I didn't know what "the concerns by Bwilkins" were about, and turned out it was this). And when I'm more and more dismayed at this situation, nobody is actually listening to me, only - "yes, this, it's his battelfield mentality again, the barrage of absurd accusations, insults and outright lies to get him banned got a rise in him, it's totally unacceptable!". It's like a parody, really. --Niemti (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheese and rice ... now you're claiming that my reason for supporting this much-needed community ban has to do with the incident with that editor? That's not even part of what entered my mind. You flat out stated that you had never heard of me before ... I showed you that wasn't true. How is it that you can twist that into suggesting that it's that tiny (although indicative) incident that is the basis of my decision to support? NO. I supported based on 10 minutes of the easiest research I have even done into your behaviour towards others. The level you're stooping to in badgering those who dare acknowledge that you're a poison on this project has risen to outright bullying: if this was RFA and you badgered the opposers like you are in this thread, you'd be shut down long ago. Your sole "defence" is that you have written some good stuff. While that's appreciated, it must also come with behaviour towards others. If you don't get that, then it's indeed time for you to take a break until you do (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This thread alone demonstrates perfectly why a community ban is in order. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, such a "perfect" collection of personal dislikes (the real "reasons"), manipulations, outright lies and insults, and sheer absurd. If I just layed down as they kick me, and ban me, surely this would show my lack of "combativeness", right. My bad. It's bad to defend oneself, it's okay to lie and insult to attack people. I'll note it down somewhere. --Niemti (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Suffering fools gladly should not be a requirement to edit. Niemti is a good editor, which sadly has become the strongest criterion for a ban proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What fools? bridies (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Niemti contributes very well to wiki. That he's not the friendliest guy in the world shouldn't be a reason to ban him. This isn't a playground. If niemti is uncivil a lower sanction should be sufficient. But I don't see how he broke the rules. This looks more like a bunch of guys who "don't like him". Machinarium (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, with his insults and mine-mine-mine attitude, treats Wikipedia exactly like a "playground". bridies (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Get over it. Machinarium (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough then. I'll expend my time and energy in some other pursuit. 14:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As said after insulting me and blatantly lying about me here. Good work, sure you can go now. Seriously, why didn't anyone confront him on lying in such a case? I'm only one who addressed this. Like it's an okay thing to do if one is Bridies, perfectly acceptable, I see. But if I did something like that... Hey, just see my "improper" handling of a Wikipedia troll (also note how 4 diffferent people absolutely disagreed with BWilkins back then, and yet now I'm alone to face this absurdness). No, I didn't lie about it, it really was a vandalism only account. But for my supposedly imperfect reporting of it, it's now one of the main arguments for why I'm now to be banned (as stated by one admin and cited by at least one other person, without even knowing at all what was this about). So what will be the consequences for bridies regarding him lying about me on administrators' noticeboard? (None whatsoever, I know. It's just a rhetrical quiestion.) --Niemti (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Marek, the argument basically runs "this guy still annoys us, let's ban him again". Niemti produces good content and a bit of hassle. I see no evidence that he's a net negative to the project. Just ignore the childish outbursts and let him get on with writing those GAs. Claritas § 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'd love to see someone actually refute the evidence while opposing. bridies (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not an AfD. No one needs to "refute evidence" to oppose the banishment of a user. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And I'd "love" to see a real evidence of your claims. Here I see a "complete lack of respect", to quote you but for me (or maybe things like calling me "deluded, megalomaniacal" was an expression of respect and I just misunderstood it as an ugly personal attack), including by accusing me of breaking, and here goes a quote, "damn near every policy". Which was blatantly untrue, and with this every so emphasized that it wasn't some kind of a slip of the tongue, you didn't mean it was "some" or "several", not even "most" maybe (not that it would be any more true), you meant what you said, you meant "damn near every", that is every single one with some odd exceptions only (a shock tactic, which then worked, sadly). Or maybe you can prove it by actually showing how I break "damn near every" them (and there's quite a lot of them). No, you can't. You can't because it was only a slanderous lie. Because you so very deliberately lied about me, right here, and without even a good reason, if acually any reason (I can't see it). So, how do you feel exposed, now? You liar. --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Frankly, I do feel he is rather overly hostile from the examples I've seen. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And what "examples you've seen"? I vaguely recognise your nickname but I can't connect it with anything. --Niemti (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You ask what examples? Well, your conduct on this page and the page concerning you on the WikiProject/Video Games Talk page, together with examples offered in both pages, your own attitudes in answering the other editors, the reliable evidence offered about your use of atrocious language. Also, the kind of editing you do can be a little..disjointed. And the references you chose! I seem to remember trying to use some similar ones and they were blocked because of dangers of spam or very poor info. Also, it does seem that you are being more than a little high-handed, as if everyone else in your editing sphere should bow down before you. I think that's what rubs people up so much. Maybe if you worked on keep that aspect under control this could be sorted out peacefully. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I remember you now, I worked at Prince (Prince of Persia) with you. Sure, I was oh-so "hostile". (Except not at all.) And whatever is "the page concerning you on the WikiProject/Video Games Talk page"? --Niemti (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You're hostile up and down WP:VG, somewhere he frequents. Not to mention links up and down this ban proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And somewhere where I don't frequent. Whatever "links up and down this ban proposal"? Like this? I had to post this, and all BWilkins postaed at first was a totally cryptic message, which was then accepted and cited by Sjones23 EVEN AS HE HAD COMPLETELY NO IDEA WHAT IT WAS ABOUT (good game, Sjones23, I love you too). And come on, click this link, read what other people say to BWilkins there. Will you stand behind this? That's a reason to ban me? Or is it one less, now? Because now you can show me all the others. --Niemti (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban I see no evidence of the kind of incivility that would merit a community ban. One of the certifiers of the RfC/U actually complained that Niemti was nominating too many articles for GA status, which would make sense if they were blatantly not appropriate GA candidates, but that is not the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What I said was that I was concerned about the multiple nominations that he placed for the project. Its not normal to see at least over 20 noms in our project unless its slow and since I saw it was by one editor, I thought he was just spamming to try to get them to GA status without knowing the process. I didn't know I would open a can of worms from it all. So, I apologize Niemti for what is going on. GamerPro64 15:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, no bad feelings. --Niemti (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Except, I see nothing from a cursory glance that would make any of those nominations inherently invalid so the number is quite meaningless. Maybe there are issues, but nothing obvious to me that would suggest it was being done without consideration for the GA criteria. Unfortunately, it seems bridies has a laser focus on Niemti for some reason.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. I can't think of the last time I saw someone so carefully and clearly demonstrate to the community the level of contempt they had for it. Every utterance Niemti has made in this thread has been yet another example of how he refuses - not even "can't", but "refuses" - to engage with other community members in a constructive manner. This is Wikipedia, not the Thunderdome, and someone with Niemti's history who plunges into a thread about his uncooperative, uncollegial, battleground habits while proudly flying all three of those on a flag above his head ought not to be terribly surprised when people notice the flags and point them out. I'm sorry, Niemti, but your behavior and attitudes don't fit here. If/when you're able and willing to control those, I'm sure the community would be happy to review your right to edit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  Say what? I "refuse" "to engage with community members in a constructive manner"? By community, I guess you mean where they discuss stuff among themselves. Well, I tried. I posted there a lot. They (bridies, Sargcross, Masem) told me I was "ranting", they actually told me they don't even read what I write (not even when I've been writing to them specifically). So I stopped trying, for the obvious reason it was evident I was just wasting my time (literally - writing someone others just ignore, that's 100% pointless). And I wasn't even obligated to come there at all, in first place. Or anywhere else, for that matter. But I tried. And what, "every utterance made in this thread", you say? That's absolutely false. Did you just guess it (then you guessed wrong, then you can read all of my actual replies, and especially the one where I show how I get along with GA reviewers in the cases that have just ended (one of those reviewers just posted here, I suggest you should read what he wrote, name's Chaheel Riens - and he did this completely on his own initative, because I didn't inform anyone about it) or are under review now), or was it a premeditated lie? I don't know, but you know, but that's a question you should answer. Maybe you should apologize for this to me, too. --Niemti (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  I neither guessed nor lied, Niemti. I read this thread, read up on your history, and reached my conclusion. Now, needless to say you don't have to agree with my conclusion, but immediately accusing me of either uninformed guessing or lying, rather than saying "I see things differently" or "What makes you say that?" or "Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, which I happen to think is wrong", is yet more evidence of how you don't really...grok...how we handle conflicts (or even one-off, small disagreements) around here. Flying off the handle at everyone who dares speak to you is why you're here on AN in the first place. Why not make an attempt to not do that anymore, to show us all that we're wrong about how you can't/won't control yourself? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  Honestly, Fluff, when an editor is facing the prospect of not being able to contribute to Wikipedia at all it is not unusual for that person to be a little snippy, especially when the person pushing for the ban has history with that editor. On Wikipedia people are far too often expected to regard a lynch mob with civility and respect, but whether you believe Niemti's conduct outside this discussion is a problem or not, I think you should recognize a basic fact that people often don't respond well to these sorts of actions and avoid the "well you're just proving the point that you're a bad person by getting mad when people are trying to stop you from doing something you love" response.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  More likely, it seems when a group of User's disagree with a User, someone labels it a "lynch mob." But it is doubtful that there is a basis to label independent users so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yes, it's to be expected that people might get a little snippy when faced with community disapproval. But the sort of sustained aggression we're seeing here isn't "snippiness", it's "snippy through the initial adrenaline surge, but then switching to mocking, condescension, accusations, 'I didn't hear that', and peppering commenters with insults at a point at which one's brain should have kicked in and said 'this is not a good strategy'." Initial snippiness is understandable. Not being able to eventually moderate oneself and realize that attacking people isn't paying off, however, is a problem. If Niemti wants to continue doing the thing he loves, he needs to show us that he can control himself and act something other than resentful, accusatory, and "snippy". So far, he's not doing that, and I'm making a serious recommendation when I say that he needs to show control if he hopes to prove to the community (not "a lynch mob", thanks just the same) that he doesn't think the only way to behave here is the way he's been behaving. He's welcome to resent me for saying that, as are you, but that doesn't change the fact that the way to change !votes based on "can't control his behavior" is not to continue the bad behavior, but to prove he can control it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban We had a disagreement about robots being anthropomorphic. I was polite and thought that the best way to come to solve was to have a discussion and to get other editors involved. He insisted that it didn't matter what other editors thought, and that I was clearly wrong. He might have some good edits, but if he can't be civil when disagreements occur, then he doesn't belong here. JDDJS (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I presented you an array of arguments, including literally thousands of websites for you to choose from, after showing you some specific examples, and more importantely - no one else got involved at all. And once again: it's not, and never was, about "robots being anthropomorphic", I was always ONLY talking specifically about humanoid robots and (fictional) human like-AIs, not simply "robots", something that you still don't understand despite being clearly told by me more than once. But anyway, just let me show you something about just "robots": "robots are not anthropomorphic" gives 93 results (most of it is of discussing "hyper-redundant robots", compeletely unrelated stuff), but "robots are anthropomorphic" is 1,810 results. And just antropomorphic robots - over 1 million, first being the Wikipedia article humanoid robot (the article that I already showed you, too, and which begins with "A humanoid robot or an anthropomorphic robot"). Really. Even if it was ever about just "robots" in general. Which it wasn't. --Niemti (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, this what I wrote to you when I (first) initiated a direct communication with you: [71]. And as you're still talking about "robots" - that's just a serious case of communication breakdown, and that's not on my side. No matter how many times I repeated basically the same thing to you, it had no effect whatsoever, you're still going on exactly as you did before I attempted to explain it with, completely to even not knowing what really is the subject matter here (explaination to ininvolved users: JDDJS would make edits like that - and yes, that's not even a robot, in any meaning of this word, as this Featured Article states in a way that SHOULD be just perfectly clear to everyone). --Niemti (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• Oppose ban definitely some problematic behavior here, but I think an indefinite site ban would be overreaching a bit. Let's explore other options, topic ban(s), forced wikibreak for a month or two (as in the YRC Rfc), etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to forget that the community "overreached" before. Unbanning should not result in an expunged record. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would actually make an use of such a forced wikibreak because I've got tons of really overdue things to do (like a dozen cosplay sessions to edit being piled up for several months now) and Wikipedia can be extremely distracting. Speaking of which, that's all from me for today (I just spent most of whole day just answering this thread). --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There are 5 diffs given, and none but the last are even block-worthy. Even the last is only an extremely immature response to someone accusing him of sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, lest we forget, this user was in fact already banned once. That ban was issued in 2008 after 12 blocks for various types of combative editing (and one for copyright violations that was overturned as apparently unfounded) . Then, the community decided in its wisdom to allow him back while he was actively evading that ban. I opposed that decision and saw this as the inevitable result of it. As others have mentioned this project works through collaboration. Niemti appears to reject the idea that collaboration is a necessary part of content building. That's probably ok if you work on creating stubs or do wikignoming type work. If instead you wish to work at the other end of the spectrum, moving articles up the chain in the ratings system, the ability to collaborate is essential. After seeing the way they reacted to the RFC and to this thread I see little to no hope of Niemti being able to overcome these issues, indeed it is pretty clear they do not even acknowledge the problem. I therefore support rebanning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't "reject the idea that collaboration is a necessary part of content building" (like, you can read what Chaheel Riens volunteered to write at the top of the thread, then you can check my work with him, and you can check all the other recent or ongoing examples, it's all in this thread, above). As I said, I even actually tried to work with them (them being: bridies, Sargecross, M., T. from above) at the project thing. It didn't turn very well, because they were just not reading what I was writing. Yes, literally. I wasn't ignoring anyone, but they were ignoring me, stating that I'm "ranting" and so they're not reading it. It clearly was going nowhere, so I stopped "ranting" for them alright, I just don't come there (which something nobody is obliged to do). Their recent "problem" was I don't review GAs. And? So what? And I don't think I'm even qualified for this. But anyway it's just 100% volunteer work, for which NO ONE is obliged in any way, too (of course). Their related "problem" was that I prepare "too many" (how many is too many?) GA-ready articles which I then submit for a review (without demanding anyone to do it, or anything like that - as I said no one is obliged to do it). And no, they could be even NEVER reviewed, and just expired or something, and just nothing would happen (but that's literally nothing). They're even talking about it here. So? Do you think it's actually a problem? I wish I had problems like that. Oh, and about this: While some of this user's GANs have passed, many have resulted in stalemates due to Niemti not being willing to make requested changes such as not updating sources with reliable replacements - this statement is simply not true. For one, "updating sources with reliable replacements" (or just removing them) was, according to my best knowlegde, never a problem, and certainly nothing that would result in "stalemates". Also I always try to use reliable sources when adding stuff. In other words: I think I can pretty safely say, it was also a lie (but for what?). You can check those "stalemates", I listed all of those "many" (four) all above, with my comments, or you can just see them from the list. About lying, just why are they doing it? That's something I don't get. Here, I'm not lying. Elsewhere, I'm also not lying. Maybe I should start, because it's apparently accepted behaviour. OK, that's REALLY enough for today. --Niemti (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please cease the accusations of lying with immediate effect, per WP:NPA. Mephistophelian (contact) 20:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC).

Actually the user who lies is the one who has engaged in personal attacks rather than the user who points out that someone is lying. You really can't be faulted too much for your post though, as this insane mentality is ubiquitous on Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the subject’s aggressive responses to those supporting the reinstatement of the injunction, the accusations of lying resemble intentional ad hominem statements to disparage four particular contributors. Construing deceitfulness as a personal attack obfuscates the differences, and appears to transform those accused of lying into perpetrators, violating Wikipedia’s policy on derogatory personal comments. Characterising my attempt at inhibiting the on-going melodrama as demonstrating an ‘insane mentality’ is manifestly spiteful and unconstructive. Mephistophelian (contact) 14:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

That's nonsense. But at least you didn't blue-link to "ad hominem". Joefromrandb (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Let me just say "While some of this user's GANs have passed, many have resulted in stalemates due to Niemti not being willing to make requested changes such as not updating sources with reliable replacements" is not true and that's all. (Also: I just realized it was from an user with whomn I recently had this post-GA discussion, and as you see I am NOT "unwilling" in this matter, and here's an additional proof of how it's just untrue because I act on that.) But could tell them to now to explain the charged statements like: "[breaks] damn near every policy" (emphasized as in original)? And also - why didn't you react, at all, to the accusations of a serious mental ilness ("deluded, megalomaniacal"), really no matter if said with premeditation or just used as insult (in a way similar to popular "idiot"), from the same user? --Niemti (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Took a look at just one article, XCOMXCOM: Enemy Unknown. I told you to stop fucking up my articles, didn't I? is not collaboration. Submitting an article for GA review with a cleanup tag on it [72] wastes the time of the reviewer but could be passed off a good faith oversight. But resubmitting the same article twice [73][74] without fixing the error? The problem isn't that no one is listening to Niemti, it's that Niemti isn't listening to multiple editors, and their response to dispute resolution is attack, attack. Is a ban too harsh? I'd support six-month standard offer, but anything less than is not appropriate for an editor who has to be threatened with banning before even being willing to discuss their behavior, let begin to understand Wikipedia community expectations (not that I'm seeing evidence of that). Nobody Ent 20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Corrected link Nobody Ent 20:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice why it failed. I excepted to see a review (there was none), not a note on talk page. After he refused to reupload, I didn't, I re-uploaded it only after this issue was all fixed. I did lots of work with this (most of the content in this article was written by me), and even as this is a brand new game the article is already very good (or isn't it?). Btw, it's XCOM: Enemy Unknown, not XCOM (different games, and even as XCOM content is also mine alright it's just unreleased yet). And such a kind of rise from me (as to use profanity) is not representative at all. I don't think you'll find any more uses of this kind of swearing betwen this incident and somewhere here up above (out of 27,413 edits, you know). It's not like I'm riding Tourette. Nope. --Niemti (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As to "their response to dispute resolution is attack, attack", yeah, if it's "them" about them. I don't hang around them to "attack, attack". I don't follow them, at all, I don't look for occasions to do anything, I don't spend time digging dirt on them (not even one second), or anything really. The "attack, attack" here is one me, I'm only defending myself from accuations, many of which are simply NOT TRUE (absolutely not true, with full responsibility I'm saying this) or otherwise just strange/absurd (in my opinion, and I wrote about it lenght). OK, but now I'm really leaving, or at this rate I won't even sleep today. --Niemti (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is all very complicated, but just looking at a single recent episode, it seems that Niemti reported a vandalism-only account to ANI (here). That was indeed a vandalism only account, and it is currently blocked; but this episode was quoted above as a reason to ban ... Niemti. I do not see any logic. My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the problem was that he refused to notify the vandal of the ANI thread, which is required, even after he was reminded to do so. AutomaticStrikeout 16:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • No no ... don't let Niemti's attempt to obfuscate the situation add confusion/complexity. The issue about Niemti not advising someone of an ANI filing has never been considered to be a reason to ban. Please re-read where that was merely in response to Niemti claiming he had no idea who I was. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm well aware that isn't the only reason for the ban proposal. I was simply attempting to point out what it was that Niemti had done wrong in that case as it was apparently being missed. Sorry for the confusion. AutomaticStrikeout 16:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The RFC says I have tried to remedy the GAN backlog issues simply by reviewing Niemti's nominations in good faith (7, if I recall correctly). I am now completely at loggerheads with him: he has stated he has "lost faith" in me, "no longer enjoys" working with me and believes I seek only to insult his work. The thing to do then is stop reviewing his articles. If he continues to annoy GA reviewers, he will end up with no-one willing to review. If it is a demonstrable issue, topic ban from requesting GA review. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
  

• Strongly Oppose Ban, Strongly Support Admonishing Though he hasn't done much that's worth a ban, he is very incivil. He should be strongly Admonished and warned about his incivility. --Rockstonetalk to me! 04:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd call a previous site ban following twelve blocks adequate admonishment. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this ban and all bans. They are a complete waste of time. - John Galt ✉ 07:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly do you propose be done to keep Wikipedia from being a constant battleground? AutomaticStrikeout 16:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose banning is simply not the right option. However, Niemti could be more civil in future. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you propose should be done instead? As mentioned above, after 1 ban and 12 blocks for uncivil behaviour, saying "Niemti could be more civil in future" sounds a bit like a broken record. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Add one more totally absurd accusation to the ever-growing collection: And the references you chose! I seem to remember trying to use some similar ones and they were blocked because of dangers of spam or very poor info. from above. I think PD was talking about this, on the talk page for the article Prince (Prince of Persia) that we have been recently worked together (and very successfully so, a total rewrite from this in April, and until now he had no complaints, how odd - here's also the edit history for everyone to see: [75]). It's all excellent, absolutely first-rate reliable sources (namely: GameSpot, IGN, Computer and Video Games, Game Informer, Empire, The Age), and of course they've been not "blocked because of dangers of spam or very poor info" (by "blocked" I guess he meant blacklisted). Can it get even more absurd? Maybe it already did, I didn't read more updates in this thread yet. --Niemti (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah! And I forgot to add: the above accusation (so strange and baseless) came from the user who believes a Wikia article might be a great source for Wikipedia references (my reaction? I placed a 'better' tag at first,[76] then realized it was just plot and so it didn't even needed to be sourced at all[77]). But that's just for an extra dose of absurd. --Niemti (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban -It seems that the user in question seems to be very aggressive at times, but he has contributed. A topic ban might be more appropriate here. Whether or not the psychological stress his behavior imposes on others outweighs his contributions is debatable.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Ban Based largely on this thread alone. This user has persisted in an uncooperative attitude. We gave them a chance to come back and now here we are again wasting our time with the non-sense. I think it is time to ban and move on with our lives.--Adam in MO Talk 09:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Ban The behavior in this thread alone is enough, add in the second chance status, the other diffs and the Rfc and the choice is clear. Basic civility is expected. Content is why we're here; but no one should have to deal with this kind of attitude and hostility. Niemti isn't even pretending to try to behave in a more collegiate fashion; his entire defense seems to be attacking others and accusing them of jealousy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Mildly oppose - I first came into contact with Niemti when the issue of many GAN's was raised in the WP:VG talk page. I decided to help clear the backlog by reviewing at least one article. While I don't believe it's up to GAN standards currently due to certain sections being far too long and rambling (a point raised by others too) it is still a decent article. For the work Niemi has done to bring these articles up in quality he should be applauded. However, reading this thread I have come away with the impression of Niemi being very aggressive in his confrontations with other uses. I believe this issue could have been resolved much quicker with a civil discussion by both parties. Instead, Niemi has refused to participate in the requested discussion forcing other users to escalate. In summary, a flat ban would remove the problem for now but doesn't do anything towards actually solving the issues. My wish would be for an imposed WikiBreak to allow this matter to cool down and for Niemti to review the policies on WP:CIVIL noting that, while other users in this thread have had questionable interactions, the spotlight is on Niemti and Niemti alone at this point in time. Finally, a topic ban is not necessary in my opinion but perhaps Niemti could be persuaded to slow his rate of editing down, make use of Peer Review before submitting to GAN and generally interact with the Wiki community on a more collaborative basis. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User Niemti has been banned before (following 12 blocks) for uncivil behaviour. One should think the editor would be familiar with WP:CIVIL by now, and the fact that they don't adhere to them has obviously nothing to do with ignorance of the policies but due to sheer unwillingness to follow them.--Saddhiyama (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but having had reasonable discussions with Niemti in the last 24 hours I stand by my oppose vote. Specifically, I think if a mob this size came after me it'd put me up against the wall and cause me to lash out too. I don't deny Niemti has some issues regarding playing well with others but this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. An imposed WikiBreak to cool off and some guidance will encourage Niemti to become a better community player. Banning him will just cause him to become even more disenchanted with the community the he perpaps already is. I agree, he is on thin ice due to past indiscretions but I'll stick my neck out on his behalf as a good faith gesture. TL;DR, community support > kicking out Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't stop to think why a "mob" (sigh) might "come after you"? An "imposed Wikibreak", like a 4 year ban (had one of those)? A block (a dozen of those)? The notion we shouldn't ban someone because he might "become disenchanted" is pretty amazing, but it's again very depressing that the converse (disenchanting productive, civil editors) is apparently not a concern. It is interesting to see people recommending a break (and Niemti kinda-sorta agreeing to one on his talk page), given what he said when he was unbanned (a mere few months ago): Also the truth is I actually wanted (want) to take some kind of a vacation from Wikipedia anyway ... it's like an addiction. Didn't quite happen. 115.74.230.254 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have got to say that after seeing this, (Codename Lisa has my deepest sympathies) I am beginning to feel a little less hopeful of a peaceful solution. And to Neimti, just because I get words wrong sometimes does not mean you have to use that air of contempt with me, or with anyone else. Yes, I did mean the WP:VG talk page, and yes I did mean 'blacklisted'. It was not IGN or any of the more reliable sources I objected to or tried to use, it was those things from fashion magazines and websites that I have been to looking for reliable news on movies and games and things like that. Generally, all I found was poor info or someone having a good rant. And to the Wikia issue, I did not say that a Wikia is a great source, full stop. I said that some Wikias are good. The one for Prince of Persia is admittedly terrible, while the one for Final Fantasy is very good and the one for Legend of Zelda is superb. Alright, I did use the Prince Wiki once, but only because there was no other source available and it was of a far better quality than nearly every other article in that entire wiki. In a way, it was a policy of 'sensible beggars can't be choosers', and that was one of the very few time's I've done that. I don't make a habit of it. I don't deny that together we have put the Prince article to rights again, but your attitude is getting...well...unpalatable with other users and I feel sympathy for them. Maybe Cabe6403 is right about you lowering your edit rate, or maybe something else. I have noted that you do a lot of small edits in rapid succession. Why not group your edits into one session with an article, like I do (unless you see something small that needs correcting). It saves time and effort, I find. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

PS; to everyone, I'm starting to get tired of contributing as I seem to have become Neimti's pet figure of fun. I will not stand for that. So, I will keep an eye on this discussion, but I am unlikely to take part again.--ProtoDrake (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to feel a little less hopeful of a peaceful solution - as said by someone who opened up with an unnegotiable "Support" and never changed this, just followed with absurd accusations regarding something that only YOU do, not me (which was pure projecting). Such a hypocrisy. Stopped reading right there. --Niemti (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban - same problems re-surfacing over and over again. --Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 11:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban If Niemti has already been banned once and then un-banned, they should be on thin ice. If we are willing to un-ban people on the grounds that we can always ban them again if they act up, we have to be willing to ban them again if they act up. Editors like Niemti can have the effect of annoying other editors to the point that they walk away. Wikipedia needs to decide who they want to retain: People who treats others like dirt or people who can actually treat fellow editors with respect. If we never require people to be civil, they won't be. AutomaticStrikeout 16:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. I can't take many of the opposes here seriously. "Contributions"? HH/N was banned for 4-1/2 years, and I should think we got on swimmingly without him. While he has produced some quality content, bronze stars and green plusses should not be a trump card. Moreover, his core interests of vidya gaems and assorted military history things are anything but unique—indeed, I'd warrant that the majority of the "quirky", tech-savvy single males that dominate this site have significant interests that fall into such categories. Entirely replaceable. "Overreaching"? "Other options"? I'm sorry, what? Is that a position reached through actually examining the case at hand, or did y'all just put down a stockphrase "b nice u guise, banz r mean" oppose? "Other options" have been tried, and the community has "overreached" before. Near up on a dozen blocks ("Consistently incivil and disruptive, many breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; second chances have had no effect."), a community ban on the HanzoHattori account, and over 4 years of socking, and y'all still think that "other options" are a legitimate route? Oh please.

I usually don't take typical "civility" complaints seriously, and I consider myself opposed to the "civility-crusader" mental pathology that has infected a portion of the project as of late. But there is a black void on the other side of the vast greyness that is civility enforcement, and HH/N seems to enjoy floating around in it—in spite of the community's trust (established in this summer's unbanning) that he will not do so. Were this to be a one-off sort of thing with a new user, a ban would not be in order. However, if you are a user with a pervasive history of combative behaviour culminating in a full site-ban lasting several years, and you are allowed back into the fold under much controversy, you had damn best better be on your absolute best behaviour. An almost(?) unreasonable amount of AGF went into HH/N's return, and he seems to be settling into the same patterns that led to his initial expulsion. Wikipedia should not get into the practice of giving nth chances for those who abuse the community's trust repeatedly. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I do not like such discussions because the opinions to ban user X are posted by people who had no prior experience of interacting with user X. I personally interacted with N. during more than a year in a highly contentious political subject area (Russian politics, Chechen wars, war crimes in general, etc.) and had no any problems at all. Yes, we had certain disagreements and discussions. Yes, he was frequently non-responsive, occasionally sarcastic, and defensive with regard to his content contributions, but I did not really care for as long he worked very hard to improve the content and in fact improved it a lot. No, only few to none people worked in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Any "this thread alone" support votes should be dismissed out of hand. Whenever you have a mob of editors pushing to get rid of another editor one can only expect some drama, with the current drama being typical and tame. Behavior when Niemti is not facing such an extreme measure should be considered.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Evidence provided in this thread appears to show that his behavior outside this thread has been remarkably similar to his behavior in it, long-term. For discussion of why "the lynch mob is out to get him so of course he is required to personally attack everyone he can find and we can't ask him to stop" isn't really a reasonable position to take, see the discussion you and I engaged in on exactly that up above, threaded below my !vote. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And of course this thread also provides numerous diffs that show uncivil behaviour outside of this discussion. Coupled with the rather astonishing list of previous sanctions, this thread thus does indeed provide a good reason for a ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You are both incredibly wrong. If people take the "evidence" being cited here and in the RfC/U as sufficient reason for a community ban, then it seems we need to get rid of a huge chunk of the editors here, including a few voting to ban Niemti. Nothing has been presented to justify any sort of sanction, period.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Niemti should not be considered the same as everyone else. He is on much thinner ice, having already been banned once, and therefore should not be given the same level of patience another user would get. AutomaticStrikeout 23:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions are not punitive. The question is whether Niemti is seriously disrupting work towards improving the encyclopedia. None of the evidence presented is even remotely suggestive of that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

[78], [79], [80] and [81] (in which I referred to the encyclopaedia, not this thread; see AutomaticStrikeout's post). This is not disruptive? 115.74.251.41 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree. These four diffs are hostile comments by four contributors, none of which was Niemti. And they continued the hostilities right on this noticeboard. Yes, this is all disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's 4 editors (civilly) stating they will not work with Niemti because of his gross and chronic policy violations, which demonstrates that those violations are a disruptive problem. And I note another of Niemti's GANs has failed, for the same reasons described and which he denies exist. Surely not disruptive either. bridies (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And I note another of Niemti's GANs has passed, for the same reasons described and which bridies denies exist. Surely not disruptive either. As of the one that failed: "My end point, Niemti, is that you are a good editor. A bit rough around the edges when it comes to interacting with others (as evident by the RfC and ANI) however you've proved to me here you are able to have a reasonable discussion - something others do not believe." But that's just another instance of "gross and chronic policy violations", aka "the same reasons", according to bridies. So horrible. --Niemti (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It was stated clearly in the RfC that articles on video game characters (and not games, although the frivolous (re)nominations of some of these, particularly Shadowrun and XCOM, are part of the problem), and amongst those longer character articles (so excepting, say, Ibuki, but including most definitely those on Taki and Kitana) that have serious problems: specifically poor, purple prose and biased reception sections. Within those articles, multiple editors have found these issues, and you've continued with blank disagreement. Now, the RfC proposed that you agree to put character articles through either peer review or the league of copy editors before GAN, which was not only very reasonable but would have left your game nominations completely unaffected. You contemptuously refused to participate in, nor apparently even read, the RfC, so here we are. The "gross and chronic policy violations" are pertinent to WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN, are proved above, and not even your defenders reject them (merely saying that others should "deal with it"). The the "reasons" for the GANs failing and the "gross and chronic policy violations" are different if related issues (and you wonder why no one will any longer even acknowledge your incoherent ranting, which is exactly that), although, sure, some of the reception sections you've presented at GAN are gross WP:NPOV (WP:SUBJECTIVE) violations. 115.74.230.254 (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC) (bridies)

How did your claim of Doesn't seem like this should be a big deal to fix, but the lead still doesn't summarise anything from development or the critical commentary, and now has a clean up tag. led to calling my renomination "frivolous" despite me fixing it all, and much more, right away? But thanks for adding one more to the ever growing list of blatantly false/absurd accusations. Keep fighting a good fight. --Niemti (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw: I'd take my "incoherent ranting" any day over your persistance to keep telling things that you know very well are false (apparently, I can't use l-word here to call a spade a spade, too bad). Also, I never made any "biased reception sections" in my life. That's just another of your false statements (I wonder if it's "gross and chronic policy violations" to roll as you do). --Niemti (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Because when I initially asked you to expand the lead to actually summarise the article, and specifically critical commentary, you did not do so "right away". In fact you tagged the article for lead-too-short and did nothing. After I failed it a week or so later, then you suddenly managed to get round to expanding it, and immediately renominating it (with the edit summary lol). So yes: frivolously wasting others' time and clogging up the already overloaded GAN queue.115.74.230.254 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi unlogged bridies. And if you had just reminded me about it (I thought Hibana would expand the article), and waited only 1 hour, everything would be fine and dandy, as "not a big deal to fix" it was indeed. Also there was no alleged "blank disagreement" there neither. Now, would you kindly publicily recant at least some of your false accusations, and personal attacks, by you against me in this thread? Instead of adding more, next. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll just note you you did exactly as I described above, left a simple fix for someone else, and that you apparently can't keep track of your GANs. bridies (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And further: in Talk:Kitana (Mortal Kombat)/GA1, the reviewer (whom you've cited in your defence) pointed out that the reception section violates WP:SUBJECTIVE, which is part of the NPOV policy. Further irrefutable examples include those given here. Whether or not you wrote these, you are responsible for presenting them at GAN (multiple article with the exact same issues, pointed out by multiple editors) and then responding with blank disagreement. 115.74.230.254 (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And the reviewer even actually came here in my defense (no, I didn't ask for it - I didn't ask anyone, which is unlike you). Also now you're really scrapping a barrel. Actually making an NPOV reception edits would be ignoring negative (or positive) sources, or deliberately misquoting those sources (I've seen this stuff happening), in order to to misrepresent/falsify the reception. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the spurious black-and-white-positive-and-negative stance again. So did that reviewer cite WP:SUBJECTIVE against the article? Is that not part of the NPOV policy? Have you even acknowledged this, let alone tried to address or rebut this concern? And as I've proved, misrepresenting sources is exactly what these reception sections have done (whether you actually wrote them is moot, since you've presented them repeatedly at GAN, and disruptively stonewalled improvements to them). bridies (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god. That's some truly horrific stuff. That's not just "gross". That's the gross-est thing I ever heard about. I'm really the Antichrist. --Niemti (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So much for "I never made any biased reception sections in my life". And this. 115.74.197.105 (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

so I'll go back to ignoring him as well, and only addressing him if issues/RFCs/ANIs arise - yeah, that's what I talked about. An attitude of ignoring me, and very openly so (including literally telling me they don't read what I write because I "rant", which was really just me putting long and detailed arguments to advance my positions). So I decided to I ignore them, too. As I said, that's why I stopped approaching this fine Wikipedia clique of gentlemen to discuss stuff seriously with them (which I really tried), and grew totally dismissive of them, and long ago so (it's several months now, probably). You can't talk normally to the people who say (to you and to each other) they ignore you, that's only a waste of time and nothing ever will come out of it. But I wonder whey they got this "thriving on attention" conclusion about someone who's not even watching their discussions at all. "Not caring" is a very opposite of this. They do care about me, though, and a lot. That would impress me, if I cared. --Niemti (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the question turns on whether Niemti is just the newest manifestation of HanzoHattori or whether Nimeti represents a clean start. If this is just HanzoHattori being HanzoHattori then ban him with severe prejudice. If Niemti is even somewhat reformed, though, then we should examine him differently (e.g. consider a temporary block and guidance per Cabe6403's comments instead of a ban). According to the clean start policy's "Editing after a clean start" section: "If you do not make positive changes in your behavior, you may be ... held accountable for the actions of your past account(s)." What I think is lacking in this discussion is evidence that positive changes have been made. Niemti's detractors have pointed to his breaches of CIVIL and AGF as evidence that he is the same as HanzoHattori. In response Niemti has pointed to his numerous positive content contributions. From the look of it, however, HanzoHattori was an equally prolific contributor and made a lot of good contributions too. So I'm not sure that demonstrates positive growth. It doesn't matter to me that Niemti isn't a saint, but if he has not made positive changes in his behavior since he was banned as HanzoHattori then policy suggest that he should be held accountable as if he were HanzoHattori. I'll grant that it's not necessarily easy to prove improvement through difs, but something should be said to address this fundamental question. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is HanzoHattori, based on his attitude and breaches of the civility policies, as well as ownership issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Even if it's a clean start, the editor behind Niemti is obviously the same as the one who was behind HanzoHattori. So some degree of behavioral similarity is inevitable. What makes the distinction between whether he should be banned or given a lesser sanction is to what extent he has made positive changes in his behavior. If Niemti has made efforts to improve himself and these are just a few slip-ups then a ban is excessive. There is already plenty of evidence above to show that Niemti is acting like HanzoHattori (in terms of both policy breaches and positive contributions). What I'm saying is that in order to rebut this charge, and to demonstrate that Niemti is a "clean start" account, evidence must be given to show that there has been an improvement in his behavior. If Niemti is an improvement over HanzoHattori then a lesser sanction may be more appropriate. If he's the same as HanzoHattori then he should be banned. -Thibbs (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • My thoughts exactly, Thibbs. We will see what evidence we can find. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't believe there has ever been any question that this is the same user. WP:CLEANSTART is for users who leave voluntarily, not users who were banned, but this users enablers helped push a discussion of ignoring the ban because he's so great to a "no consensus" close, which somehow meant that he should be unbanned, when usually no consensus results mean preserving the status quo. So,we have here a banned user who, through making th right friends, was able to just ignore their ban and get back in through the back door. There was never a clean start. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed. A banned user ignoring their ban and getting in through the back door is seriously unacceptable. I agree that Niemti is definitely not a clean start. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

All you people above. PLEASE first familiarize yourself with the situation THEN proceed to spout off opinions. Yes, this is HanzoHattori. He was unbanned. "cleanstart" is not the issue here. There is no need for looking for evidence. There is no one ignoring their ban here. There is no back doors. Please, please, figure out what the hey is going on first, before you comment. Else you wind up sounding like, well, like you don't know what the heck is going on. Volunteer Marek  02:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a little more subtle than that. The discussion of whether this is HanzoHattori or Niemti is not about whether this is the same person behind the username or not. Nobody has ever thought the operator was a different person. The question is whether he has changed his behavior when he "became" Niemti. The community unbanned the operator of these accounts. Why did they do that? If you look at the discussion leading to unban it's pretty clear that a good part of the rationale has to do with the assumption that he is reformed (e.g. Diana said "it looks like their behaviour has changed"; Master&Expert argues "People do change, after all"; Nyttend notes that "the behavior in question has ceased"; the closing admin cites WP:ROPE). It looks like the strongest arguments opposed to the decision had to do with the validity of the original ban and the invalidity of the current consensus, but even Beeblebrox acknowledges the "behavior has changed" argument when he describes Niemti as "the 'reformed' sock account". If we wish to move beyond what we may consider the erroneous unblocking of Niemti then we have to accept the fact that the rationale leading to his unban was that he had changed. Given his supposed change of heart and given that he was allowed to continue to use his alternate account without returning to the HanzoHattori account (as would have been proper if the prevailing argument had been that his first block was unfair), it seems reasonable to me to consider the sanctioned Niemti account as a kind of clean start account. If that's the case then looking for evidence of improved behavior is appropriate. I can't actually imagine any banning discussion where "There is no need for looking for evidence". Obviously applying the clean start test doesn't fit as well as if this were a non-previously-banned, non-socking editor, but I don't think the test is a bad one in this situation. -Thibbs (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at Hanzo's parting shot from just before his first ban, the themes appear exactly the same: he has made vast contributions, others are out to get him. Although his ideas on "democratic votings" would prove his undoing if applied as such here. bridies (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah so far all of the evidence that has been provided goes to demonstrated that there has been no change in Niemti's behavior and conduct from that of HanzoHattori's. And although I'm not giving up on the matter, it looks for now like Niemti is more interested in bickering with his detractors and in returning BOOMERANGs than in providing any evidence of improved behavior so I find my good faith waning. -Thibbs (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I just read that not-so-parting shot. What lame stunt coming from a drama queen - NPA be damned! --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• • I don't see anything in CLEANSTART that limits it to people who have left voluntarily instead of involuntarily. Most of the people who make use of it probably haven't even left at all. Niemti's is an unusual case, but the reason behind using the new name instead of returning to the old one is most likely an attempt to avoid negative associations with the old name. Since this isn't a case of sockpuppetry anymore (i.e. it's been officially sanctioned in the discussion where he was unbanned) I think it's only reasonable to regard Niemti as a clean start if he can provide evidence that he has sought to improve his behavior rather than to simply avoid scrutiny. -Thibbs (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, somehow you missed this at the bottom of the lead section of the clean start page: "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." Sanctions were in place when he started editing under this name, so it is not a new account and not a clean start by any definition. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably he could have resumed editing under the name HanzoHattori had he chosen to. The community unbanned the editor, not just his current username. As of the moment he was allowed by the community to continue editing as Niemti he could no longer be considered to be sockpuppeting and he could no longer be considered to be editing while simultaneously under a ban covering a different username. His decision to continue using Niemti instead of switching back to HanzoHattori looks clean startish to me even if the origin of the account is clouded by sockpuppetry. Anyway I'm not sure what your point is. If you don't consider Niemti to be a clean start, does this mean that you reject the notion that evidence of improved behavior is relevant here? And if so, what yardstick do you suggest using? -Thibbs (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. If this is a WP:CLEANSTART, it's clearly a failed one. User is not working collegially with the community, and further appears to be trying to steal Malleus's shtick. There can be only one. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Who or what is "Malleus"? "The community" was not "working collegially" with me (by ignoring me and outright telling me that they're ignoring me), I only responded in kind. --Niemti (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a ban, because Niemti refuses to acknowledge that he has a problem interacting with editors that disagree with him. He hasn't expressed any intention to improve his behaviour because he can't see any problem in it. He is just continuing the behaviour that got him banned in the first place, with no intention of changing after all this time and after all the blocks he was given. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• As someone who actually collaborated with Niemti a few years ago and knows his contributions from several accounts, I must tell the following. He is extremely dedicated to the project (100,000+ edits from all accounts). He likes technical, "gnomish" edits. He is surprisingly neutral when it comes to the most controversial political subjects. He has no problem openly speaking out his mind, and he likes sarcasm, which I do not consider incivil. He mostly contributed to the content and has no experience in wikipolitics, responding on noticeboards and politically correct/safe behavior in this hostile environment (sorry!). He is rather impatient and can be easily provoked. There is nothing else here, really. My very best wishes (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Except the blatant ownership claiming and incivility, which you've neglected to address. 115.74.197.105 (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I never edited videogames, but speaking about other subjects, I wish it would be so easy to collaborate with some other contributors as it was with Niemti. It was rather obvious that his changes in different articles represented either a significant improvement or at least a reasonable alternative version, and he took care to source his edits. Hence I never challenged all his changes, but added more sourced information. This is something he never objected. Once again, I wish it would be so easy to collaborate with others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

All well and good, but it is then disingenuous to say "There is nothing else", when there are diffs of much else. bridies (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not check all diffs and comments (tl;dr, sorry), but there was nothing else in diffs I checked. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. Uncooperative editor. Removes citation needed tags when reverting, does not bother to use talk page or edit summaries. Operated socks for years, won't be civil in discussions with others, will not acknowledge need to change his behavior. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in that diff you give it looks like, while Niemti might have removed a cn tag or two (perhaps by accident), you're actually blind-reverting him, which includes you removing provided citations (the "Sennikov" one) and putting tags in their place. Also, I'm not seeing you on the talk page either - rather it looks like you jumped into this article to revert Niemti without an explanation.

Also, you speak as if you have encountered this editor before this disagreement. Where?  Volunteer Marek  02:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not blindly reverting him. I left notes in my edit summaries that he completely ignored. I have come across his work elsewhere, e.g. I saw him edit Lev Rokhlin a few days ago and some other articles before that and looked at his history in this discussion thread. The source he used for Rokhlin was a marginal obituary that claims that Lev Rokhlin was Jewish, when he was a Christian, etc. It was understandable - he used a poor source. I didn't even bother to revert him before now. Then he leaps in to revert me without so much as an explanation at the Tambov article after I undid some rather of his rather poorly sourced edits there. You responded very quickly - please take some more time to look over it. Hasn't he learned to follow WP:BRD? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Blind or not, I don't see either one of you on the talk page. Your edit summaries are pretty generic as well. As to the removal of that particular source, that should probably be brought up at WP:RSN. Neither person followed the "D" in BRD here.

It's also possible that Niemti might have seen your red-linked username and, perhaps unfairly (though not unreasonably - lots of people do this) thought you were a drive by vandal account (especially since that article has had lots of sketchy activity in the past) (that's also why I asked if you've encountered him before) and that's why he reverted you (only once!!!) without saying anything. On the edit-warring scale, though neither person violated any policies, you're up a revert or two over him on that article. Volunteer Marek  03:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, WP:BRD means you make an edit, someone reverts, and you initiate a discussion if there's a reason why you feel it should be put back. He made a very bold edit, I reverted it with an edit summary noting a particular source used, removed some of the unsourced stuff or added citation needed tags. The sources I use when editing articles for history topics are university presses or mainstream non-fiction publishers, not the publication arm of the National Alliance of Russian Solidarists. And he put it all back without discussing. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a particular source, add "better" the tag and explain this on talk page, and in case don't revert my cleanup work on the article. Jewish Telegraphic Agency is not "poor source", and in any case here's also the American Jewish Committee[82] or The Economist[83], etc. Add one to the ever-growing list of groundless/absurd accuations. --Niemti (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you are ignoring the reverting issue and only addressing the Rokhlin article. If you had bothered to investigate the Rokhlin issue, you would have learned that Rokhlin's father was Jewish, but that the son was not, and never actually met the man. That's not what I brought up as the major problem here though, so let's stop that train of thought. So, why did you remove my citation needed tags for the "100,000" Bolshevik and "70,000" rebel troops at the Tambov Rebellion article? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "investigate the Rokhlin issue" but just read about him in newspapers, and you forgot to present any reliable sources for your claims. I've reverted your revert (of my thorugh cleanup), that's all. Add tags to the article, instead of reverting and then adding, for some reason. Btw, the only(!) book that mentions "Pyotr Mikhailovich Tokmakov" is a book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, where this "local fellow with a good deal of natural talent" is described only as just one of members of Antonov's command staff[84] - instead of your wild claim of him being "The leader of the rebellion" (and there's only 1 book mentioning "P. M. Tokmakov", too, and in it he's just one of "militiamen close to Antonov"). --Niemti (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, only one source? I see more than that when I do Google Books searches. Do you not think "Pyotr Mikhailovich Tokmakov" - instead of Pyotr Tokmakov, or Tokmakov Tambov, or Токмаков Тамбов - is a tad too specific to be searching for? I could have given you more sources if you had asked for them - as somebody following WP:BRD would have done, instead of reverting everything, including tags, because you didn't like it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It was YOU who used specifically "Pyotr Mikhailovich Tokmakov" and "P. M. Tokmakov" (and not anything else); and you didn't present any sources saying he was "The leader of the rebellion", instead of Antonov, during an event that is called Antonovshchina for some reason (and you're extremely unlikely to find them, because it's an extraordinary claim indeed). As of the chemical weapon attacks by the Bolsheviks against them: here are 180 books, feel free to choose any better source if you didn't like this one for whatever reason. --Niemti (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't specify for you to search for "Pyotr Mikhailovich Tokmakov" at any time - ever. That's pretty clear. There's so many problems I don't know where to begin. For instance, I see 700 results for "Antonov Movement" [85] - the English rendering of Antonovshchina, which your edit described as a Soviet historical term. You'd better stop going on about it because this isn't the place to make poor arguments on article content, and I doubt anybody reading this cares. If you had raised the discussion at the proper place, we would have been discussing it there instead. The really bad thing is that you do not even bother to try going through the WP:BRD cycle when there is a proposed ban discussion going on about you not acting collaboratively. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"English rendering of Antonovshchina" would be Antonovism (which is used in one 1 book, and in reference to Soviet propaganda literature). And the term of "Antonovshchina" is used only in Russian language, mostly Soviet, books transliterated to English (for use as references), or in books that are using Russian terms (for example: As we now know, in the summer of 1921 gas was also used to exterminate the last fighters of the Antonovshchina. Punitive (karatel'nye) and extermination (istrebitel'nye) detachments carried out the most extreme measures. - that's also regarding your denial of chemical warfare). And he's maybe the best example: What the Soviets derisively called the Antonovshchina. Also note: it's "Antonov movement", of course, and not "Tokmakov movement" - contrary to the so obviously, and fundamentally, wrong claims from both the intro and the infobox from your edit. Allegedly, There's so many problems [you] don't know where to begin and I make poor arguments (and you make them excellent), so you can continue and add as many absurd claims and false accusations as you want, I'm collecting them. "Collegially", you can make it the most inane thread in the history of this noticeboard. --Niemti (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK folks. While I'm still not informed what is "Malleus's shtick", I'd like to show what kind of "not working collegially with the community" I deal with on daily basis, on example of Talk:Ayane (Dead or Alive)#Images. I'd say you should read it all (and hey, one of my edits there was even already shown here, as one of supposed proofs of me being so "gross and chronic" or what not), but here are some highlights:

• Lucia Black completely and absolutely ignoring not only and every one of my arguments (that were repeated and still ignored) but also everything that all other people who commented there (Sergecross73, Escape Orbit, Cabe6403, X201), as well as any kind of compromise (I've already agreed to two compromises: for showing the newest game, which would be from NG, and for showing actually two newest games, from both the series, including DOA5 alright - which actually makes showing the same costume twice in the same article, but never mind).
  • Sample (most recent), and it's just so beautiful: I dont really care. We had consensus. Im not going to let it he wavered just because an editor is stubborn. Im bit gonna compromise when we were clearly winning. Im sorry but the new editors in this discussion are only trying to find a compromise when we want a decision. So instead if helping the situation they attempt to be nuetral and choose a more difficult situation. Im sticking to the most reasonable choice, any other will just give the article undue weight.Ă Its only one editor! - is this that this dreaded "battlefield mentality" and "stonewalling" that you were talking about? I suppose you're going to discuss banning her, right? No? Why?
• Fresh personal attacks from Anddo (even as he had agreed to compromise and even himself uploaded the new image, which I then only cropped), calling me, quote, a stuck-up little guy, which is really nice.

And that's my oh-so horrible "Malleus's shticking" with such an awesome "community". Clearly I'm the Antichrist. --Niemti (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

All of this is irrelevent here. Lucia Black's stubbornness has no bearing on whether or not you should be banned. You're getting off-topic again. She's not collaborating well, but unless we're the topic is blocking/banning her or something, that doesn't matter here. And please calm down with all the melodramatic, sarcastic, self-deprecating comments. We get it. You resent being called out. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

All of this is absolutley relevant here. Anyone's behavior is fair game at these noticeboards and how Niemti was treated is entirely germane to how he responded. Please don't try the "this is not about anyone's behavior but yours" routine. WP:BOOMERANG. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

But none of those people are involved in what's being discussed here. No one wants to ban him based on that conversation or interaction - they couldn't, much of the discussions he has been referring to have been developing concurrently with this discussion. What I'm getting at is, there are plenty of good editors, myself included, who endure all sorts of personal attacks and instances of incivility, and have no problem remaining civil themselves. Niemti may be showing an explanation, but not an excuse. (Furthermore, it's not an instance of BOOMERANG, as all I said in that argument was that both sides were wasting their time in arguing trivial details, and moved on.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you can't be more wrong. Precisely, a fragment of this very conversation, as well as my other interactions with Anddo (on his talk page, where he showed no respect for me and my work whatsover) were used as a bulk of supposed proofs I'm such a "gross" child-eating monster. And now - oh, what? It doesn't matter, all of sudden? "The community" is still excellent, and I'm a black sheep, right? --Niemti (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fine, by all means, keep airing your random grievences with various users. I guess we'll see how far it gets you. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not "random", it's directly relevant to the a bulk of "proofs" that were cited here somewhere at the top of this thread (including one citing a part of this very conversation). And now I'm showing this how this "collegial work in the community" really looks like, and my interactions with the said "community" of excellent editors who are never, ever "combative" or "stonewalling" at all, and are never ignoring what I say and my arguments. And speaking of which: weren't you also ignoring me, too? Like, openly so, using the word "ignoring" to describe your attitude? (Because my ignoring-back was supposedly oh-so bad.) --Niemti (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I mainly chimed in because you mentioned me by name, and referenced a conversation I was briefly involved in - the Ayane image discussion. I don't think I'm ignoring you as much as I just don't enjoy arguing quite as much as you or Lucia do. But I'll let you get back to your new approach, which apparently is some sort of blind shock that, when you're rude and abrasive to everyone, they either return the sentiments or don't want to work with you anymore. I don't need to comment anymore, you're doing a fine job on your own here... Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The conversation was referenced since the beggining of this thread, as to show how I'm allegedly such a bad guy (of how I'm oh-so inpompatible what with was called "collegial work in the community"). But when someone else, in the very same thread, is just extremely "combative" (including even accusing others, and you too, of trying to be neutral ("nuetral") and looking for a compromise, as if it was some bad things) and is 100% "stonewalling" (openly rejecting any kind of compromise, while ignoring all arguments and proposals, and not only by me but by everyone), than it's alright, and somehow nothing here is initiated by anyone. How can be 2 users in a single thread be treated in such totally different ways? (Btw, that's hardly the first such incident was behaving in exactly the same way, I've seen it before, and I can show you if you want.) Oh, and if you ignore me (and very openly so), and you did it first, you can't hold against me my ignoring you back (which was another accusation, regarding how I basically ignored being "formally requested for comment", something that I didn't even understand, as I've never seen such a thing and no one told me anything of "or else"). That's not working one way only, it can't be totally okay for you, and yet being unacceptable when I just respond in kind. So stop with your double standards. --Niemti (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a perfect example of battleground and WP:POINT on the part of User:Zloyvolsheb. He saw an editor in trouble (Niemti) on the noticeboard, looked at his recent edits, reverted by removing reliably sourced information like here, and came back to the noticeboard to complain about his reaction. If someone does not know Russian, "Zloyvolsheb" means "evil magician" in translation. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And my username is a reference to an egomaniacal space politician and thief. Just sayin' you know, bringing up the meaning of a users screen name is almost never helpful.

It might be relevant in this case. This "magician" works to neutralize my edits [86][87], even though I have almost no activity in "his" subject area. So, I think he does exactly the same on AN right now. His comment is actually my fault. I am sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh gawd. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Pn another note I have asked for a formal close of this discussion. It has gone on much longer than most such discussions and wandered far afield from its intended purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, those blocks of whiney rants coming the subject of this ban is just more signs of a lack of mental instability. We don't need such people in this project. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"A lack of mental instability" implies mental stability genius.Joefromrandb (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, those people with "a lack of mental instability", they sure don't belong on Wikipedia. Btw, very nice personal attack attempt, this thread is just so classy. Is this what you call "BS behavior"? --Niemti (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your desperation is. BURN! Niemti, just leave the project and get on with your life off-wiki. (Personal attack removed) --Eaglestorm (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Check yourself into an asylum while you're at it"? Anyone care to explain why Eaglestorm hasn't even been admonished, let alone blocked, for this egregious personal attack? This was satire, all too often lost over the net. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have undone Nobody Ent's close. You have absolutely no business closing a discussion in which you were involved, supporting the banning of this user, no less. While I'm here I'd like to ask: Where exactly is the best place to propose forbidding non-admins to make closes at the admin boards? Village Pump? This is getting outrageous. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

They only closed the thread, there was no attempt to determine consensus. Given the direction of this it was probably a good idea. Can someone please close it properly now? The result of this will impact other processes (namely the GA one). AIRcorn (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a non-starter, I'm afraid. First, the only technical way to prevent non-admins from closing these discussions is to lock the page. Which prevents any non-admin from discussing here at all, something that has been repeatedly rejected. Second, there are plenty of discussions which do not require an admin to close, so this would just create another layer of bureaucracy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with non-admins making non-contentious closes at AfD and elsewhere. But this is an administrators noticeboard; if I came here because I needed administrative help and had my thread closed by someone who is not an administrator I'd be pretty pissed off. We certainly don't need any more bureaucracy, but I don't see what is gained by not waiting for an admin to close a discussion, and something has to be done to put a stop to some of these wildly inappropriate closes. We have far too many meddling busybodies hanging around these boards. This user voted to ban the user in question and then, after he felt he had seen enough, attempted to prevent others from commenting. If an administrator had done that the shit would have hit the fan. I would think that a non-admin making such an egregious error in closing a discussion should be even more cause for alarm. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not good that the initial proposer of the block tried to close the discussion. I agree with you there. However, I'm not alarmed because it's such a rare issue that it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. On the flip side, neither you nor I are admins, so we'd both fall into your class of "meddling busybodies." ;) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial proposer was User:bridies. I'm not aware of any policy on AN & ANI closes, only existing practice. I solicited input before beginning to archive AN & ANI threads, see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_10#archivetop_and_collapse_tags. A review of the page history will show I did not "close determining consensus" but rather was suggesting the useful part of the conversation had run its course. Per normal wiki convention, an editor feeling strongly otherwise was more than welcome to revert the archiving. NE Ent 16:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox (an administrator) asked for someone to close this, rather than closing it himself, because he took part in the discussion and expressed an opinion as far as his desired outcome (like you did, Nobody Ent). It was not an invitation for you to close the discussion. These boards are for situations that require administrator attention and/or involvement. I can not fathom what this infatuation is with non-admins attempting to close so many of these discussions, but they're fucking a lot of them up. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, Eaglestorm called me "that bastard", to which Lord Sjones23 answered: "Oh, I get it now. I understand your concern. Cheers"[88] You know what? That's something I don't do (calling people names and such), and yet I'm allegedly being uncivil. No, I won't "check myself into an asylum". And what a classy thread. --Niemti (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban: WP:CLEANSTART failed due to persistent incivility and battleground behavior, with no credible evidence that the editor intends or is able to improve. Also, because of the enormous amount of editor and administrator time the editor has wasted with their shenanigans. As suvh, they are a net liability to the project, and there is no credible reason to believe that that will ever change. The editor was given ample oportunity to correct their behavior, and has failed miserably. It's high time for them to find another hobby, because this one simply isn't working out. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I keep coming across this users edits in recent changes and mistaking them for vandalism due to the fact they never leave edit summaries. I've left a couple of messages on their talk page, and I see from the talk archives they've been asked about leaving summaries several times in the past, but there seems to be no acknowledgement of these requests. Determining what is vandalism and what is good edits is really difficult since Niemti makes dozens of edits to articles in short periods of time when a single edit with previews would have done, and leaves no edit summary explaining what is being done. I've caught myself on several occasions from undoing his edits as vandalism due to mass deletions of data with no explanation, and only when looking at it from a larger perspective realised there is some refactoring going on. Canterbury Tail talk 12:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is just a note that I tried to talk with both participants [89] [90]. As about wasting other people's time, no one has an obligation to comment here or anywhere.My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous subsection was way too long

Another arbitrary break for convenience. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rich Farmbrough's editing restriction

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 raised a case at WP:AE about what I perceived to be a violation by Rich Farmbrough of his ArbCom restriction on edits that perceived to be automated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough. While there is no consensus that these were indeed a violation of that restriction, with most people seeing it as probably a form of tabbed browsing instead, there seems to be agreement that it may well have been a violation of his editing restriction on mass creating pages. However, that should be handled here, not at ArbCom enforcement, so here we are.

The restriction is at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, the second of his restrictions there: "Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented." The violation is the creation of over 500 identical pages in a day, [91], the edits from 4 November (there were some additional similar creations in other namespaces as well, mainly template talk pages).

Perhaps the admin who addresses this can at the same time remind Rich Farmbrough that adding categories to his user talk page attacking other editors is not a very good idea [92]. Fram (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone can seriously argue that creating 500 identical pages isn't a violation of an editing restriction about the mass creation of pages. Therefore just go with whatever sanctions are appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unless I'm overlooking the advance community approval, this looks pretty clear-cut to me. What are the consequences of violating this restriction on mass page creation? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Escalating blocks. The last one was for a month, in March (the next month-long block in June was not for these restrictions, but for the ArbCom restriction). Fram (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I have blocked for two weeks, which I think was fairly generous, especially considering the personal attacks and the battleground mentality on User talk:Courcelles' talk page. For the record, the last block for violating this particular restriction (September 2011) was one week. If someone wants to extend it, they're welcome to. --Rschen7754 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I noted just before your block that the previous block was for a month, but that may have been for the other restriction (on cosmetic edits) instead, I hadn't checked that and the block log doesn't seem to indicate for which of the two restrictions it was. Fram (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
        • That was actually an ArbCom block for violating an ArbCom restriction. I suppose one could make the argument that my block should have been longer, and if they want to extend, it's fine by me. --Rschen7754 10:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd favour a longer block - it just seems strange that we have a duality here. One set of blocks for one thing, a second for another, and the two are unrelated. Disruptive editing is disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 10:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it was brought to my attention that Elen's monthlong block was actually for violating this sanction. I'm considering extending it. I'll wait a bit and see what other people say; there's no rush since the block doesn't expire for two weeks. --Rschen7754 10:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That particular restriction should be removed. It was placed in Jan 2011 in the context of mass creation of categories. The statement of restriction said I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. ... If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant. Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation now includes categories. Nobody Ent 11:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this wasn't automated editing; it's possible to do a similar effect in tabs (hey, it almost worked for me trying to get the 4 millionth article!) --Rschen7754 11:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is true that this would usually be covered by BOTPOL, but the reason that Rich has the edit restrictions that he has is that he chronically failed to follow the bot policy before stricter sanctions were imposed. WP:BOTPOL already says that any large-scale page creation (the text suggests "anything more than 25 or 50") must have bot approval - which Rich did not have here. This is what led to the community editing restrictions (along with his arbcom ban on automated editing). — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why Fram waited 38 minutes after starting this thread to notify RF? [93][94]? Nobody Ent 11:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No idea. I'm also heading out for the night, but if people feel the block needs to be lengthened, go ahead. --Rschen7754 11:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Beacuse I forgot? Anyway, he was aware of this issue (at the ArbCom enforcement discussion), but choose not to respond to it there. having it discussed there, I forgot at first that this is a separate discussion and needed to be brought to his attention as well. I indeed did so only 38 minutes later. Fram (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"only 38 minutes later" doesn't seem very "only" when he was in fact blocked 41 minutes later. So he had 38 minutes of being unaware of your having forum-shopped this to here after it appeared not to be heading towards a block at AE, and then 3 minutes to respond (if he had happened to be editing at the exact moment you hit his talkpage.)

Also, how do you open a completely new section on a noticeboard and simultaneously manage to "forget" that it is a new section that you yourself just opened? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Forum-shopped? I thought it easier to deal with this restriction and the ArbCom restrictions in one forum, but was sent here by others as the AE forum doesn't deal with other restrictions. Forum-shopping is when forum X doesn't agree with you, and then starting a case at forum Y. Here, forum X indicated that they were the wrong place, and that it belonged at forum Y, i.e. here. No one indicated there that it wasn't a violation of this restriction. Feel free to criticize my late note at Rich Farmbrough's talk page, but please leave out such incorrect accusations. Fram (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:AE ("forum X") didn't agree that there was grounds for action on the basis you proposed it; and indeed no-one at WP:AE suggested you come to this noticeboard. But you came here anyway, while also managing this impressive trick of "forgetting" that you were doing so until 3 minutes before he was blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I will probably get blocked for this and I have been trying so hard not to edit but this embarrassment of an ANI thread and related block has all but required me to comment (more on Rich's talk page). Fram and Rschen you two should be blocked for your actions here! You forum shopped, you deliberately wait to notify the user, block them a long time after the thread was opened ensuring they cannot comment, Wikistalking and constantly hounding and following Rich checking his every editor, assumption of bad faith, posting it in the middle of the night so few would have a chance to comment or respond and a variety of others. You two really have no honor, no respect for the rules here and you shouldn't be admins. I'm tired of seeing these same two names popping up in collusion. I am so angry at this monstrousity of a list of policy violations and utter incompetence. And they say I can't be trusted to be an admin because I have the wrong "temperment", if this is how an admin acts and how they work with the tools then they community is right, I have no business having the tools and I am glad that I have quite editing. This is a disgrace! Only in Wikipedia would this sort of activity be allowed and even encouraged by Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two editors at the AE filing suggested that it was not an arbcom restriction violation but a editing restriction, and one specifically mentioned ANI. It would have been much better form to wait until the AE was closed before filing, however. Nobody Ent 12:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we can agree the ANI was slightly premature as opposed to entirely inappropriate. It certainly shouldn't distract from the issue at hand. GiantSnowman 12:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Rich did or didn't do at this point is really irrelevant. These 2 editors, especially Fram are looking for any reason to ban Rich entirely and Fram seems to be systematiclly eliminating all the editors with high edit counts for one reason or another. The issue at hand was that Rich did some edits. That's it. Just to clarify I admit that I don't have any respect for Arbcom's decision in Rich's case. I think it was blown out of proportion and the limits put on him and the blocking of his bots are a net loss, and it has been noticed by a lot of others in several venues, that the loss of these edits is negatively impacting a lot of areas. Yes he has made mistakes, but they are easily fixable as are most things in WP. What seems to be more important though is catering to a couple of whiners that want to make a name for themselves by playing Wikicop and use any opportunity to use their admin tools, appropriate or otherwise. Sometimes, when you are clearly involved, as Fram has been proved to be well beyond this point, its best to just let someone else deal with it. If it truly is a problem, then someone else will notice and take action. Rich has made mistakes, we all have, no one is perfect and the more edits you make the more mistakes. If you make 10 edits, you can probably have zero mistakes, if you do a million, as Rich has done or several million as his bots have done, then the chances for mistakes are much greater and almost inevitable. But also still easily fixable in a Wiki-environment. But here we are, again, blocking him for doing what? Editing? Absurd! We need to encourage editing, not tell people we don't want them too. Arbcom makes these decisions but the memebers rarely edit so aren't down in the trenches doing the editing and the work. We are and its us that has to deal with the work not getting done and pick up the slack when they block a high volume editor, but oh yeah I forgot, there's no rush! Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether you personally view the restrictions as legitemate or not is completely irrelevant; the fact is that Rich accepted the restrictions and is now violating them. It's shows no respect at all for the community. GiantSnowman 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose block: I have observed, and approved of, the vast, vast majority of Rich Farmbrough's edits over the years. In a few cases, Rich has goofed, and alarmed, or merely annoyed, some editors. Annoyed editors should cool off, and should not be steering the ship of Wikipedia by shedding editors. This most recent bout of WikiProject templates being added to (created) Talk pages does not rise to the level of prior mistaken, and sanctioned, actions (creating unnecessary categories - 2011). Rschen and Fram, weighing the "violation" against the benefit to the encyclopedia, I say either cancel the block, or shorten it to 2 days. These are the types of quality, on-policy edits I'd be doing (with bot approval), though I might give warning first in very large volume (>2000) cases. I can do 500 edits per day by hand with no script. Get it straight: Rich Farmbrough is not the problem. This reminds me: I have neglected Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup for too long. --Lexein (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your right it is irrelevant and it is pointless because the community hsa granted Arbcom the power to make bad decisions and there is nothing I/we can do about it now exept deal with whatever tens of thousands of edits don't get done. The fact is that Rich is doing useful edits by adding WikiProject banners to articles, Fram is playing the boy who cried wolf and Rschen is happily playing along with his USRD buddy. The bottom line is, if one devotes a little time to it, its extremely easy to do 500 pages a day without a script, all one needs to do is make a list and either work from notepad or from a subpage, clicking and pasting. additionally this can be done by simply looking through the category and looking for articles with no talk page. It does take one thing though, a large investment of ones time, indicating a belief in the project. And what do we do, tell them that they are wrong by blocking them and tell them that the project they believe in does not want or need their help (which it does, it needs all the help it can get). That we do not appreciate or respect the use of peoples voluntary time. I/anyone can do a lot of edits very very qucikly without a script and the assumption that Rich is using one is just bad faith. Even if he was using one, he is performing needed edits. That's only one of the multiple reasons why this block and ANI discussion is an afront to existing policies. There are so many things wrong with it, as I pointed out some above, it simply baffles me how some are actually supporting it. Now you seem relateively new to this whole situation and seem like a level headed sort. I however and intimately familiar with this case, with Fram, with Rschen and with the activities of Arbcom and that is why this angers me so, why I have retired from editing and why I have taken the time to edit, even though I intended to stop editing and retire from the drama of Wikipedia. Because this sort of B/S is what is killing Wikipedia and keeping good editors away, good edits from being completed and a fraction of why Wikipedia is being prevented by some from being all that it can be.Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also damaged if we have to go over and over and over and over each and every block of a user - even if it is blatantly against their editing restrictions.

If an editor has a ban on mass creating pages 500 is way, way, beyond the line. If it was 20 you might have a point.

If an editing restriction is truly no longer needed, then he should ask for it to be removed, and the community should grant that request as it removes the ambiguity. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I never agreed with the ban in the first place so I have a jadded view of it anyway and of that I agree. Second, We need not go over and over. What we also don't need is some editor stalking him, crying wolf everytime he doesn't dot an I or cross a T. Additionally, Arbcom has historically been very good about blocking, banning or desysoppoing any editor that came across their desk, I do not know of a case where they have ever come back and removed the ban. If Rich was doing something contentious I would have just kept to my retirement and not chimed in at all. That is not the case here. He was doing needed edits, without error as far as I can see. The pedia is already suffering at the loss of Rich's edits and the loss of his bots (most of the tasks still haven't been picked back up and some have been begged for multiple times by multiple editors). That leaves the rest of us mere mortals to try and cover the absence. Now with my retirement, thats another 10-20, 000+ edits per month that aren't being done. That all adds up. With all that said I am not going to continue to fight for what appears to be a lost cause. I stopped editing because of shit like this and the general attitude and the failure of us to consistently enforce policies instead of picking and choosing (this ANI being a prime example) of when we want to enforce things like AGF, Wikihounding, notifying users of ANI discussions, allowing the user to comment on their behalf, and in this case on and on and on. But instead of saying something to them because we like them or because they are admins, and admins rule the world here, we want to string the user up because they were doing edits against their restriction. OMG, how this place is failing. Somedays I regret retiring and think that there is still a lot of good work that can and needs to be done. But this sort of thing cements the fact that Wikipedia will and is dying and no one wants to change that culture of attacking the ones doing the work. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The last motion arbcom made, which is currently posted on this page Arbitration motion regarding Iantresman, is removal of a ban. Expressing concern about Wikipedians being attacked by attacking Wikipedians don't make very much sense to me. Nobody Ent 20:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kumioko ah, the good old "stalking" claim that is also bought up every single time we have one of these discussions, and one that always raises the drama levels. Frankly editors edit histories should be examined in some detail (AKA "stalking") before blocking to make sure it is actually fair and reasonable.

With regards to Arbcom certainly in their more recent decisions they are usually pretty sensible about who to block, and as NobodyEnt points out their last decision was to unblock. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just gotten up and read through this thread, and frankly, the accusations are way off base. "USRD buddy"? Who, in this situation, is involved with WP:USRD? Just me, and nobody else. I know Fram was involved in the Gibraltar road AFD, but I can't even remember how he !voted. Furthermore, it seems Kumioko has an ax to grind with me - his project WP:WPUS and WP:USRD haven't gotten along for years upon years. BTW, my blocking him would be a gross violation of WP:INVOLVED. --Rschen7754 19:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock Blocks should be to prevent problems, not to get in the way of a useful editor. 500 manual edits in a day is to be commended. ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry? Since when did we decide that community restrictions are no longer to be enforced? Also, this doesn't address the issue of the problems those 500 edits caused. --Rschen7754 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Quite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Nope. As I said, adding correct WikiProject templates to (created) Talk pages does not rise to the level of the prior 2011 issue, and simply doesn't merit a block at all. --Lexein (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The block criteria is about as objective as it gets. Rich has a longstanding community editing restriction whose validity was upheld in a finding of a recent arbcom case. Rich violated the restriction by creating 500 pages in one day. The reason for the restriction was a long pattern of problematic page creation by Rich before the restriction was enacted. In this case, is in many previous cases, Rich's mass page creation job included entirely preventable errors [95] as well as some mistakes about which articles should be tagged [96]. A long series of such error-prone jobs is what led to the editing restrictions and arbcom sanctions that Rich is under. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • No, that "error" was typo-fixed within 60 seconds, and was factually correct: "Gracillarioidea is a large superfamily containing four families of insects in the order Lepidoptera." I added a rationale to the Talk page. As for the second error, thanks, I fixed it, though I wish you had. Are you that annoyed? If the error rate is below 2% (less than half the vandalism rate), that's good enough for me. Even manual edits can have errors, check edit histories, yours, and mine. The fact that a script was used is utterly irrelevant. --Lexein (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
      • At this point I have completely lost faith that this discussion or the majority of the participants in it are going to agree to anything that is said by the other but here goes.
      • @CBM, For clarification, CBM, that's not quite accurate. Yes Rich made some mistakes, however, the only thing problematic was the gross misrepresentation of the "problem" or more accurately the "perception of a problem" by you, Fram and a couple of others. Now because of that, tens of thousands of edits are not getting done...every single month. Did Rich create 500 things today? Yes it appears so, however as far as I can tell they were all done manually, correctly and he wasn't creating "articles" he was adding a WikiProject banner and that is what caused the creation of the talk page. Because the "article" had not been tagged for the project already. I'm not sure if maybe I misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia so let me clarify my understanding. The pedia is built and maintained by volunteers, who donate their time to make it better. As such, an editor doing more edits equals more improvement equals a better encyclopedia. As a professional mathematician CBM I am sure that you can appreciate that sticking by this formula will lead us to success. We all have strong opinions of the Arbcom decision but setting that aside we need to ask ourselves, did the edits Rich made benefit the encyclopedia? If the answer to that is yes, there is no reason to block him, to argue about right or wrong. They either are, or they are not. Now I think that considering that and nothing else, Rich did what we all strive, or at least should be striving for, which is to make the pedia better.
      • @Eraserhead, you can discredit me if you wish, or attempt to minimize and deflect the comments its really irrelevent. The bottom line is, the background surrounding the creation of this ANI thread, the block and a variety of other things are a disgrace. Whatever you feel about me or my comments aside, certainly you must see that.
      • @Rschen, I have no vendetta or axe to grind with you or with USRD. You both have proven time and time again in your actions how you interact with others. The behavior is toxic. You have reflected article ownership constantly, you have colluded within the project to eliminate other "competing projects" even creating a subpage for this purpose and now you have colluded with Fram to block Rich using tactics that I can only describe loosely as "dirty" because it was the only way you could get the result you have been pursuing. I have essentially given up on editing largely because of editors like you and Fram that are degenerating the culture and environment of Wikipedia into a nasty, backstabbing culture of Blue Falcon's (I'll let you look up the meaning to that one). You both should be ashamed of yourselves for your actions here. Unfortunately we also both know that no one is going to do anything about this. You are admins and we are stuck with the decisions, poor or otherwise, that you make. After seeing your actions here, I am glad I cannot call myself an admin. Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but you're the one who brought up USRD, not me. My involvement in that project is completely unrelated to this situation. --Rschen7754 02:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Rschen, please lets pretend for a moment like I am not a complete idiot. Remember that although I am not an admin, I have been here for a very long time and have worked around both of you for a very long time. We have history you might say so baring that in mind, your assertion that you and Fram's membership in the same project and that you both frequently work in tandem on things like this, one submitting and the other blocking, one submitting and the other supporting are completely unrelated. Anyone with 10 minutes of free time can look through your edit histories and see where one is, the other is not far behind. So no I do not accept that they 2 are unrelated anymore than Butch Cassidy was separate from the Sundance kid! Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
            • I don't see Fram's name at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants; can you show me where it is? Also, why would someone from Belgium be a primary member of the U.S. Roads WikiProject? Finally, let me state on the record that I have no other connection with Fram, and Fram has no connection to the U.S. Roads WikiProject. In fact, the only interaction has been at the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road, where I voted opposite of how he did. I hope we're not playing the game of "throw out plausible-sounding accusations in the hopes that some stick" because this is clearly wrong, and more infuriating and disruptive than the rest of this discussion or Rich's disruption. What, do I need to get a signed statement from the other USRD members that Fram is not a member of the project? --Rschen7754 08:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
              • @Kumioko, if you want me, and other uninvolved editors, to take your point seriously don't bring up stalking, its one of the old classics that always gets bought up by the persons friends and it never has any basis to it - and it does nothing but add drama.
              • The same applies to other baseless claims like the one about the US roads project, if you don't have the evidence you shouldn't be making the claims. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe people are arguing against this extremely lenient block. People under sanctions are supposed to avoid behaviour that even looks like it will violate them. Jtrainor (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can't even fathom what Rich is still doing here. The guy has worked his ass off for the project and his reward is a "lenient" 2-week block. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So have plenty of other people who have done nothing to require any blocks at all, or only small blocks and no community restrictions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) As a regular target of the self-styled wiki-police myself I am also surprised at his fortitude. He must have broad wiki-shoulders! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Who cares what he's done or not done? He's still expected to follow the rules. The policies don't exist only for people who contribute below a certain arbitrary amount, which is what you seem to be suggesting, Joe. Jtrainor (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from person who created the editing restriction: if the task of tagging categories, templates etc for a WikiProject was requested by a WikiProject member in good standing with reasonably clear instructions then the task can (probably) be considered "community approved". If Rich has merely taken it on himself to go around tagging things, then the restriction has been breached. Given the many, many times this type of issue has come up, is it really too much to hope that the tagging task was actually requested by someone? Rd232 ^talk 07:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any such request by looking through his contribs for an "OK, I'll do/I did it" post, or on his talk page, and nobody's come forward at AE. --Rschen7754 07:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No editor should have to wait for such a request. I am glad that someone is using their initiative and getting something done rather than treating Wikipedia as if it were facebook! Rich, please carry on with WikiProject tagging. I am sick and tired of doing it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Even one with an editing restriction? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If an editing restriction prevents an experienced editor from doing something that improves the project then there is a problem with the restriction itself. While we have these interminable discussions and because of editor attrition (perhaps actually due to these discussions) we are letting Wikipedia fall apart at the seams. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A clear case and appropriate use of WP:IAR. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock. I am not completely familiar with the issues surrounding Rich Farmbrough's editing but his current block does not suit the "crime". Blocking is for disruptive editing and doing the mundane things that never seem to get done is not disruptive - ban or no ban. I am under a topic ban due as a result of a request by Fram at a WP:AN discussion and there are many parallels with this latest request from Fram. (Gratuitous advertising: I am contesting the block in a thread a few sections further up this page!) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And there's the problem, you need to be aware that there was an entire arbitration case sparked around his automated and high-volume repetitive edits. That should be a red flag there. --Rschen7754 08:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

@Eraserhead, I don't care to continue to argue the point. With all of the blatant policy related violations that were associated with this ANI, as I noted before, if you and others can't see it, then there is really no point in my continuing.

@Rschen, in regards to comments here and on my talk page. I have no desire to continue to waste my time on this discussion. Its clear no one cares to do the right thing. I only commented in the first place because the violation to Wikipedia's policies were so blatant and obvious that I couldn't simply sit by and watch it happen. But in regards to the comment you left on my talk page I will say this. USRD wins in the end. With my departure and retirement, WPUS and most or all of the supported projects will likely be inactive in the next few months so USRD will be able to do whatever they want because no one will be here to stop them.

@Others, I have already admitted I didn't agree with the ban against Rich or his bots by Arbcom. It was a bad idea then and it still is. It is a net loss to Wikipedia and anyone who is actually out there in the trenches doing the work can see it. There have been no less than 20 discussions in different boards about the bot tasks and work he used to do that isn't getting done at all now. I am going offline again for at least several days. I have voiced my opinion here and again I feel no one here cares to do the right thing so there's no reason to continue to waste my time with a lost cause. Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are "blatant policy violations" then it should be trivial for you to present diffs to backup your claims. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Correct enforcement action, output should influence length of block. Rich was sanctioned both by Arbcom and by the community and has been blocked under both sets of sanctions. It might be less confusing if the two were combined, but that does not invalidate the block. I do however think that the question of whether the articles created were beneficial should be taken into consideration in determining the length of block. On previous occasions mass-creation has caused a lot of work, and if this lot are in that category, then a longer block would be appropriate. If this lot are reasonable, 2 weeks would be the maximum one would want to impose, and then maybe look at ways to help Rich create articles without getting sanctioned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In this case he was creating talk pages by tagging them for wikiprojects. It would be easy enough to get community approval for this task - go ask the relevant wikiprojects... Which, as so often with Rich, is not any kind of special requirement but the norm anyway: people shouldn't go around mass-tagging things for projects they're not members of without any attempt at prior coordination with the project. Rd232 ^talk 16:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • @Rd232 there is not now, nor has their ever been a requirement to get a WikiProjects permission to do these types of changes. I would also argue that to require this would indicate article ownership by the projects which has in my opinion become a bigger problem over the years and needs to be addressed in itself. Rich is doing valid edits, in a manual fashion and although doing them fairly quickly, without error. So really all this block does, is ensure good edits are not getting done. Additionally, since multiple policies were violated to get here as I highlighted above which appearently is no longer important in Wikipedia, this discussion is rather pointless. I would also note that if Rich had made mistakes, had used automation or a variety of other things which would have been obvious violations (whether I agree with the ban or not, which I don't) I would have kept quite and would still be playing minesweeper or something more usefull instead of participating in this discussion knowing that no one at all cares what I have to say on the matter.
    • @Elen, so that fact that Arbcom told Fram there wasn't a problem means nothing? I do also agree with you that mass tagging is a lot of work and we should be thanking Rich for doing it, error free, rather than punishing him for using his time voluntarily to benefit a community. A community that frankly has largely reflected that don't seem to want him participating in the project and has taken every opportunity to show him that. I also want to give praise to you in noting that I appreciate that you seem to be discussing this and other issues with Rich on his talk page. Many of the others involved do not appear to have that sense of respect for their fellow editors and I have called them out on that as well. Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Wrong, and going off on a tangent of wrongness. It is long-established convention that tags of a WikiProject belong to that project. This convention exists precisely to avoid project (page) ownership concerns - any project can tag pages it thinks useful to tag, which is to say, things it wants to monitor or work on, and editors can't go around mass-removing their tags because they disagree. Equally, editors can't go around mass-adding tags of projects they're not involved with without any attempt to ensure the project in question wants it - it's not their call. (NB when I say "mass-tagging" it should be obvious that this means the sort of thing Rich was doing, and not adding tags as part of NPP, for example.) Rd232 ^talk 20:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Kumioko's present unhappy state of mind was in part catalyzed by a block during an edit-war that started because he interpreted convention exactly that way. (see this thread at VPP) I daresay he's well acquainted with the convention, such as it is. Choess (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
          • I would also note that if you read through it you will notice that I used to take great care to taste my words, to try and not hurt other editors feelings and to play nice in the hopes (naive as they were) that if I did that, and clearly articulated with diffs and explanation what the problem was, that we could all come to a resolution and be happy. Many or all of us saw what that got me, leading to my present bluntness. So although I do agree with your statements Rd, the fact that I was blocked, my bot shut down and any credibility I had in the site nearly destroyed proves that the community and general consensus are otherwise. Kumioko (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock I'm sorry, he was blocked for tagging WikiProjects? Such tagging should always and automatically be considered to be "community approved", given the history of such projects on Wikipedia. At any rate, it's unrelated to what the community ban was intended to prevent – remember that bans are intended to solve a problem, not to create an artificial future problem. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • But what about the side effects of such mass tagging? Such as the mistaken taggings, for example. --Rschen7754 20:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This is Wikipedia, thats what the revert button is for! Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
      • And we get to the root of the problem: someone shouldn't have to follow Rich around and clean up after him. --Rschen7754 20:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No, he's been blocked for breaching his editing restriction, which he wouldn't have done with his tagging if he'd bothered to get approval from the projects in question (apparently he didn't). This is precisely the kind of thing the edit restriction was intended to prevent: Rich going off and doing things on a large scale he thinks are a fantastic idea without any attempt to ensure community approval beforehand (or proceeding despite complaints, etc). Generally, wikiprojects ask for mass-tagging. Rich could easily make himself available for such requests; he could even reach out to inactive and semi-active projects and encourage to make requests. But no, that's just not his style. Rd232 ^talk 20:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Quite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• well, he has clearly violated his restriction:

"Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), [[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough}} is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation." (emphasis added)

Next time he wants to add lots of wikiproject tags, he needs to ask the relevant wikiproject, and get approval before the tagging starts. Otherwise, he'll just get blocked again. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, NO!, editors should not be requried to ask a project if they can add a WikiProject tag. That is a blatant violation of article ownership. If a user is adding tags that are innapropriate like adding WikiProject Biography templates to birds related articles for example then thats something else. If their crime though is "creating" a talk page with a WikiProjects talk page banner because the article hasn't been tagged yet, then there is no problem. Furthermore, whether I agree with the ban or not, I do not believe that this is in keeping with the spirit or purpose of the ban. Additionally, I don't see anything that Rich is doing that needs to be cleaned up after. IF he were as I mentioned before I would have kept quite, but this is just nonsense. Kumioko (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on how it is credible to claim that it is acceptable to create 500 pages when you have a ban on mass creating pages... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't be silly (nobody is saying permission is needed to add "a WikiProject tag" - but that's very different from mass-tagging for a project you're not involved with and not bothering to communicate with) and please stop ignoring what I'm writing (I've made this point at least twice already). Rd232 ^talk 22:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree with part of that, if all things were equal which they are not. First I do not even remotely agree that we wouldn't still be here if he had gotten permission, Fram would have still brought him here. What's worse, he would have been stopped from doing them at all which means we would have 500+ articles which are not tagged for the projects and I cannot believe that you might actually think that is better so don't bother to argue it. Secondly, if the project members said something about it, which they did not or if he had done something in error I would feel different. But neither of those happened either. IF Fram hadn't gone about it the way he had or even if someone other than Fram had submitted it, I wouldn't have bothered to comment. So aside from some hyperbole about other editors cleaning up after his edits, the only problem here is enforcement of something that isn't remotely benefiting the encyclopedia anyway. In fact it hurts it at a rate of a minimum of 50, 000 (and probably more) edits a month because Rich and his bots aren't allowed to edit. Edits I might add that are not being done by any other editor. I would also argue that if editors are cleaning up after a mess Rich created then they should also be angry about the mess that Fram created by forcing them and others to do more manual edits because Rich and his bots aren't. But they are not, because no one has stepped up. Not you, certainly not Fram and not even me. So yes its just as much my fault as anyone's but I look at it like this. I did everything I could do to try and stop this travesty of a ban and railed on Arbcom for weeks about it but no one seems to care about the edits that aren't being done, so why should I. So those edits are simply not getting done. As far as I am concerned at this point unless someone here like Fram is prepared to step up and pick up some of the slack (which he isn't) and do some of what we should be here to do which is make edits to articles, I don't have any remorse for hurting his or other editors feelings and telling them that they are not pulling their weight and doing whats beneficial to the pedia so they can score some admin block points. A lot of users at this point don't like me, they think I cause drama, they think I have the wrong temperment for the Admin tools and I don't really care. I tried to be nice and polite and work with people for years and you know what it got me? Shit on, no respect and nearly banned. So now I know I'll never have the admin tools so there's no need to keep being politically correct and although they can go ahead and keep on not liking me because I called them out and hurt their little feelings what I don't think anyone thinks is that I don't care about Wikipedia, I don't care about the articles and I am not passionate about ensuring that things happen correctly and appropriately. So even though I am not editing anymore I am still lurking and reserve the right to comment from time to time if some admin (or editor) decides to violate policy just so they can show off their admin tools and/or get their name in ANI again, they can assume that I am watching and going to say something that might just hurt their feelings. Kumioko (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

But you also drive people away if people behave disruptively without any consequences. Those people may be less high profile, but that makes a difference too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"unless someone here like Fram is prepared to step up and pick up some of the slack (which he isn't)": apart from cleaning up many of Rich Farmbroughs errors, I have also suggested to you that I was willing to help with one task that one of his bots did but is no longer done now: User talk:Kumioko/Archive 11#Wikiproject Watchlist. So please don't accuse me of not being prepared to pick up some of the slack. As for your other arguments; the vast majority of his bots edits, certainly the most important ones, "are" being done by other bots, e.g. the dating of maintenance tags and the creation of monthly maintenance categories. For many of his other edits, it is a good thing that they are no longer done, since they created a lot of problems and were the main reason for the editing restrictions and arbcom case. Fram (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats true behaving disruptively does drive people away. But I don't believe I ever saw anyone leave Wikipedia because Rich created an invalid category or did trivial edits. They have left because editors followed their every edit. This isn't even about high profile its about common sense. If an editor is doing something useful then we shouldn't be finding reasons to get them banned or blocked which is exactly what happened on the Rich case. Its true enough he did some insignificant edits but that was only a problem to you and about 3 other editors.

Oh that issue. Well Fram I did appreciate that but it really was hard to take that seriously for a couple reasons. One, that is a task that needs to bot automated by bot not done manually by a user. You could do it manually for the main project but what about the 100 or so supported projects. I am 100% certain you don't have that kind of free time. Lastly, if I had the Admin tools I would have probably done that myself but wouldn't because it just takes too much time. Actually, I can list about 30 things his bot isn't doing anymore that people have asked for multiple times in the bot request forums but no one wants to do. The only thing "good" that may have come out of Rich's block is that there is less load being put on the servers because less edits are being made, so less process time is used and less storage space is required to store those changes. Again it was really a minority of people that complained. The majority of the problem was that he did so many edits across so many different areas a lot of people noticed it. Also, another side effect of Rich's ban is that few editors are not willing to any bots that do actual edits to articles. They archive talk pages, to do some behind the scenes maintenance stuff but very few do actual editing and none to the scale of Rich's bots. So its going to take more than that Fram to convince me that you were trying to be "helpful". You helped enough when you spearheaded the quest to get Rich banned. Kumioko (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is quite clear from this discussion alone that Rick doesn't have any understanding of how to follow the rules. Given the scale of his rulebreaking we can't give him the benefit of the doubt and expect anyone else to follow the rules at a later point without being a raging hypocrite.

He may be an amazing programmer, but at the end of the day if he can't get on with the community at least a bit he can't edit here - he has to learn to respect the community if he wants to volunteer in the community. Once people start to mistrust his edits if they have to go through 500 over and over they aren't going to be happy about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Noting that Kumioko has withdrawn his claims regarding USRD's involvement in this block: [97] --Rschen7754 21:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose block based on apparent lack of concrete evidence that automated edits were completed in contravention of restrictions. --Nouniquenames 04:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are also other restrictions that he contravened, specifically relating to the mass creation of pages. That includes manual mass creation of pages. --Rschen7754 04:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems I overlooked that. Apologies, Nouniquenames 16:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rogue bot?

Edits by User:Hammocks and Honey that say db-a9|bot=ExampleBot and put the A9 csd incorrectly on articles where the artist is bluelinked. I'm reverting from the earliest on the list, but I can't see hoe to stop ot. I've messaged Hammocks and Honey. Peridon (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. It looks like they just copied the {{db-a9|bot=ExampleBot}} off Template:Db-a9 and began pasting it everywhere. That said, they were all incorrect, so I have rolled them all back and will notify the user. Furthermore, he stopped when you posted on his talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nytend has blocked them (possibly a 'her' if you look at the user page...). Thanks for the mass rollback - I couldn't remember how to do it. I tend to work one at a time on things. Peridon (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That block really wasn't one of the best. The user had already stopped adding the tags. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's preventative - it does look like an unauthorised bot. I thought at first it was just a new user going astray, until I saw how much and how quick (and rang for the fire brigade...). Peridon (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think this was a bot—only one edit per minute or so—and I think the user should be unblocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Very low and unusual edit rate if it is indeed a bot. I mean, I don't think it makes much sense for a bot to post stuff at points with 12 mins breaks and what not. Still, very weird behavior. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

When you're claiming to be a bot and editing disruptively in the same fashion across many pages, you need to be blocked. I've been careful to disable autoblock, permit account creation, enable talk page editing, etc. — if no bot, this won't hurt, as I've explained our policies to the user and basically asked her to appeal it. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to say — it's not simply preventative. The user's last edits were only about 20 minutes before I blocked, and given the large breaks between some edits, I don't think that we can solidly say that she'd already stopped adding the tags. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the block is warranted as a preventative measure. There are no edits of any other kind from that account except for the creation of their user page. It has all the hallmarks of an alternative or sock account. WP:ILLEGIT generally prohibits undisclosed alternative accounts from engaging in deletion-related activities. Other "new" editors were blocked for this reason. This is in addition to behaving like a bot. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Request Topic Ban - User:MissSherryBobbins

Requesting a topic ban on an editor with SPA account solely for the purpose of editing article Mercy Ministries. While SPA is not the reason for any type of ban unless the editing is disruptive, there seems to be a dispute about the neutrality of editors with this article. One editor is currently banned for sockpuppetry and I just filed a SPI case on MissSherryBobbins for the same.[98] Again, these are not the reasons for requesting the topic ban, but this is: Upon searching Mercy Ministries on Google, it came up with numerous articles posted the day after the ban of the other editor. It appears that the SPA account of MissSherryBobbins is connected with these articles which appear to be WordPress websites set up to post negative information about Mercy.[99], [100], [101], [102], [103]. While posting of negative information is not against policy as long as it is sourced, I get the impression from the evidence above that MissSherryBobbins has personal experience with Mercy that makes them too close to be able to edit the article from NPOV. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose First, the SPI issue should be resolved before proceeding further. Secondly UsedEdgesII should first discuss their concerns on the editor's talk page before initiating WP:AN discussion. Nobody Ent 21:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Let's see if she's a sock first. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if filing this is premature. If the SPI should proceed first, then I would request that this be put on hold until that time. I apologize if I did not follow the proper procedure for this. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Assuming there is no sock problem, I would like to see evidence that MSB has been editing inappropriately recently. As an admin closely involved with this page lately, I have to say that MSB has been doing quite a good job of not using blog sources, keeping the article NPOV, etc. Simply being associated with an advocacy group outside of WP does not necessarily mean one is barred from editing the topic here on WP; so long as her contributions are neutral here, then there is no problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen, you said at the SPI that UsedEdgesII is now blocked, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Am I misunderstanding? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Never mind, now xe is--you must have been in the process while I was typing this. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Ms Bobbins is cleared of sock charges. The person who filed this report and the SPI is a sock of User:Morning277(see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 for that particular block party), and they appear to have thrown another of the Elance sockfarm to the wolves in order to stop MissSherryBobbins.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The cleared account should change the name, to be more accurate, to MissSharyBobbins, the inspiration for the moniker. Jus' sayin', as a Simpons aficionado. Doc talk 03:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi UsedEdgesII, Qwyrxian and others. I am still getting my head around how wikipedia works as well as the content of this conversation. I am confused about why I am being accused of sockpuppetry? If I am under investigation, I am more than happy to cooperate with anyone commissioned by Wikipedia to look into this issue. I have not used wikipedia under multiple accounts, and if the reason I am being accused is that I have only worked on this article so far, then the same could be said for other previous editors of this article of all persuasions. And furthermore as confirmed by Q, I am endeavouring to work towards a more accurate and neutral article, under the supervision of Q or whoever else wishes to take an interest. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do or any information I am obligated to provide. MissSherryBobbins (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

The accusation was frivolous and made in bad faith by a user who has abused multiple accounts in order to circumvent the revocation of his editing privileges.

>anyone commissioned by Wikipedia to look into this issue

That's a really odd thing to say... MER-C 12:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that odd. MSB probably meant whoever was commissioned (as in "official charge or authority") to moderate things on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy fun socking

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

---

Hey all. Normally, I wouldn't bother AN with a run-o-the-mill sockmaster and his farm, but we've got a case here where the apparent master (Sriharsh1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was clearly grooming for a RfA while playing havoc with the puppets. The SPI is here.

I'm thinking a formal community ban might be in order? It's a formality if he stops now, but given that he's all over 200+ IPs, I doubt that. — Coren ^(talk) 22:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing like a classic "good hand" bad hand" strategy to ensure RfA success! (not) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ban 'em inb4 "oh no banz r dumb" whining ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• oh no banz r dumb. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ok ban m. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I appreciate humour. But I'm not sure a banning discussion is the best place for it... YMMV of course - jc37 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Let's hope mileages do vary. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• In this case I support the wielding of the ban stick. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Comment The indefinite block is sufficient for this offense. If the user can fashion an unblock request that is sincere and satisfies lessons learned, let them resume productive editing. If not, they can remain blocked. My76Strat (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Socking in this manner specifically attacks editorial work and community governing, which relies on good faith consensus by independent users in good standing. So, community ban makes sense, until the community sees fit to lift it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Your rationale is thoughtful, and compelling. I hadn't considered it in that vein, as a community prerogative. Seeing it as reasonable, I've stricken my oppose of the ban and reduced my sentiments to a comment. My76Strat (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban - He has exhausted all of our patience with the community by socking. With that said, it's time to get this sock puppeteer out of here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

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

elance problem

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Mavrody, an IP has shown that the integrity of the AFD is impaired because of a paid request elance referencing the AFD. I'm having trouble picking the paid puppets out from actual contributors and would appreciate assistance or advice. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maaaaan. Don't they know anything. Seriously, folks. If you want to edit for money, make sure you do one on Gibralter. Sheeesh.101.118.20.195 (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well let's see, User:Teotocopulos has made four edits in the past two years, and has now made four edits to this AFD and created an essentially blank user page, and User:DishingSevens created an account one day into the AFD and has edited both the article and the AFD. Those two seem pretty obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:JP22Wiki also looks suspicious -- just read some of the "articles" this user has created: State Custodians, Hamper Emporium, StartHere and Australian Mens Shed Association. The user was heavily involved with Porscia Yeganeh, which was also subject to Elance spamming and filed a DRV for the same when it was deleted. Looks like there's a sock/meat farm going on here. MER-C 07:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked JP22Wiki - these appear to be spam articles (they all have a similar format of being written in advertising speak (eg, "David Westman founded the company to offer an online mortgage solution" from State Custodians and "The 1300 Home Loan model is different to how many mortgage brokers currently operate in Australia. The model aims to give consumers access to the best independent mortgage broker in their given area, without the conflict of interests with numerous parties." from 1300 Home Loan) and being mainly referenced to the organisations' websites. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also speedy deleted most of the articles as being blatantly promotional (the Men's Sheds articles are borderline; another admin may wish to delete the). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you noticed that Carlang behaves quite similar? See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlang. Probably they are more. Tagremover (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: There are more editors: Elance: wikipedia Professionals or Elance: wikipedia Professionals, sorted by earnings: $584,597 , $357,064 , $346,587. Hey, forget it. I quickly create a sockpuppet myself and get rich. Tagremover (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Carlang is a regular on Elance, but isn't one of those who applied on the advertisement listed above. User:JP22Wiki I know best from Freelancer, rather than Elance - I guess it is possible that it is the same person using different names on each site, but according to my records they aren't the same. One of those who was given the contract, and presumably voted in the AfD, was Singing River Media, who I previously had flagged as a sock of User:Bamanh27. - Bilby (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Carlangs creations or edits:: IOnRoad, Blake Mallen, Body by Vi Challenge, Nialaya, Jannik Olander, Marianna Biernacka, ViSalus, Cellular Sales and more. Ads or not? And see: Over 50 refs added for Photographytalk. The only photo ref he added, with max 1 sentence as reason. The sockpuppet wasn't sure, but i am quite sure something is wrong. Tagremover (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Photographytalk edits were a paid contract, as was ViSalus. I think some of the others were, but would need to check my notes. That said, I'm not aware of Carlang breaking any policies, unless you regard the Photographytalk edits as spam. - Bilby (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Photographytalk refs are spam!!! Just FAKE reviews: NO research, just copied manufacturer infos, opinions or nearly worthless comparisons. And Carlang added just the ref or a banal sentence. And see: Babatunde Rotimi and Mark Portmann: also: Meghansen (talk | contribs)‎ Tagremover (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked Carlang (talk · contribs) as an advertising-only account; most of the articles he or she had created were on barely-notable firms and clearly non-notable people associated with them, and all were written in advertising-like prose. While I'm pretty sure that this was a different editor to whoever was running the JP22Wiki account, the structure of the articles was/is generally identical (they all have a relatively detailed section on the history of the company stressing the insights of its CEO/founders and then a short section about the (apparently wonderful) products the firm sells). Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of spamming related to the firm 'ViSalus' going on. I've just blocked Jbam200 (talk · contribs) for more or less the same thing (creating spammy articles about probably non-notable business people, including someone related to ViSalus, who have previously been the subject of several articles which were deleted due to notability or spam concerns). Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• photographytalk.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.photographytalk.com

@Bilby: Photographytalk insertions are WP:REFSPAM. This domain has been spammed previously. MER-C 02:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the way I was looking at it. I just wanted to note that spam would likely be the main problem with the Carlang account, as I hadn't detected any socks. - Bilby (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Only for information: i already removed many of the Photographytalk refs. The problem is that some think of them as "professionals" and reliable: so thank you for blocking Carlang. Tagremover (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Carlang has posted an unblock request. MER-C 12:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is getting paid for editing not allowed? 140.247.141.146 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

While getting paid to edit is not absolutely forbidden, any behavior that is indistinguishable from spamming, paid mor not, is explicitly not allowed. Also, users who are being paid to edit should never be commenting in a discussion of deleting the content they were paid to create as they obviously have a severe conflict of interest. At the very least they should declare their assosciation with the subject when commenting in any discussion of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:COI. Being paid to edit (while frowned upon by some) is not forbidden. However, it can create a conflict of interest, where the paid editor is expected to promote the subject, rather than be objective. Beeblebrox has the right of it: paid editors should identify as such in any discussion, but especially in AFDs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, not only isn't paid editing "absolutely forbidden", it isn't forbidden in any sense. Nor is having a conflict of interest. Oh, we make suggestions about how people should behave, but there are no policies that prevent one from editing for money. It would be nice if there were something related to this that had some teeth, but there isn't. Is it any wonder people are being paid to set up wikiprojects here that benefit other entities? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What is forbidden is promotional editing, whether for money or for conviction. Editors suitable to be blocked are those persistently doing entirely promotional editing, or promotional editing to the extent it damages the encyclopedia. A person who produces barely acceptable articles on a mix of somewhat notable and barely notable subjects is not violating this, as some of their work benefits the encyclopedia; this is different from someone who produces either hopelessly promotional articles or articles on clearly non-notable subjects, neither of which do any good to the encyclopedia at all. Looking at the articles, the one that is clearly the worst of them is the article on Body by Vi Challenge, an unjustified partial duplicate of the already promotional but notable ViSalus, Marianna Biernacka, on the other hand is in my opinion clearly non-notable, but is not in any sense promotional, and seems unlikely to be a paid article. I do not think this warrants blocking. I think it warrants a warning to be more selective in the articles they write, and more careful in the way they are written. I'd say just the same (well, almost the same) about any amateur doing work of similar quality. What we should be doing in the meanwhile is carefully examining the articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Note

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.

---

• Special:Contributions/Rezabf12

Wanted to put this on others' radar. - jc37 12:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Afternoon Say has been tagged for AfD, but also note Talk:Afternoon Say Band, a fluff piece with no corresponding article. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Also noting that both the stub article and the talk page have the same content. - jc37 12:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Both deleted WP:CSD#A7/G8, also Afternoon say band post rock. User has been adequately warned, nothing more to do unless he returns to the charge. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

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

UAA backlog

Folks, bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention when you have a moment. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Still need three admins to close a discussion

There was a request recently (now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Disputed closure of RfC on Wikipedia talk:Did you know) for three admins to review an RFC with a contested close at WT:DYK (now archived at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 86#Proposal). It passed through here with very little outside interest. Would any admins be willing to take it on? AIRcorn (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Should a user sub-page of a banned/blocked user be deleted?

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 came across this user sub-page of a banned user and I was wondering if it should be deleted? It appears that the user created it around the time they were banned and it does not seem to relate to Wikipedia or its mission in any way but I am unclear if I can slap a deletion template on it or there is another procedure. Since you took the last action against the users account would you mind giving me you opinion? Should the page be deleted (as {{db-g5}} or some other such criteria) or should I just leave it alone. meshach (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

G5 only applies to pages created after being banned/blocked, as I n new pages created by sockpuppets. I think this is almost certainly something the project does not need, but it does not seem to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. I'll nominate for mfd. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and for nominating the article at mfd Beeblebrox. meshach (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Discussion on changing guidelines for loss and restoration of administrator tools

Discussion is in progress here. Churn and change (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disease article undergoing severe vandalism.

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, but this article is not being watched by a lot of people and the vandalism - which I reverted or may have been slowing of cashing is a major problem of this article. I don't have time for Wikpedia right now but I noticed vandalism while I was on and decided to alert someone about it. Any suggestions? --Hinata talk 03:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV is for quick reports and rapid response for high levels of vandalism against specific articles. However, disease does not seem to have this sort of problem, and the sentence you removed is not WP:VANDALISM. You could make a rational statement about why you might disagree with it (either as factually incorrect or as editorially inappropriate for the article), but it's not obviously problematic. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the vandalism to the article in general, it's actually not very intense, and has all been reverted relatively fast. It's nothing serious. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It must have been a cache thing then, because last time I got a paragraph of vandalism so never mind. This was yesterday though, I probably should have screenshot it to give proof but oh well. Never mind. --Hinata talk 15:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes, RfC 3

The last RfC before Pending Changes goes live is open, and going well; please drop by. There's a fair amount of agreement, except we're stuck on one issue: how to handle demotions, and whether that question should be moved up from the discussion section to the RfC proper. You'll find the pros and cons in the Removal of Reviewer section. My own position is that, if we add the question, it should include a recommendation to try to get consensus among reviewers first, but I could live with a straightforward "demotion happens at WP:AN" ... if I can get some sense that people participating in demotion discussions here have thought about possible downsides of disenfranchising reviewers from discussions of reviewership, and have enough interest in the process to peek in from time to time. People have been working very hard on PC, and I'm pleased with the progress so far. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the 2012 Arbitration Committee Election

Nominations for the 2012 Arbitration Committee Election opened over the weekend. There are expected to be 8 seats up for election and experienced editors area always needed to run. If you're interested, information on nominating yourself is available at the candidates page. Nominations will remain open until Wednesday 23:59, 20 November. Monty₈₄₅ 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WMF Merchandise give away program

Hey all!

I'm happy to announce the start of the WMF merchandise giveaways program. We're asking for community nominations for users who deserve something extra. Do you know a patient mentor? A trusted admin, or amazing photographer? A great writer or copyeditor?

The page, Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways, and the program in general are very much in beta so we're looking for both nominations and general feedback about the process (how easy/hard it is, questions that aren't answered, prettier awards and page design etc! ). To keep discussion centralized please leave comments and questions on the project talk page. (cross posted from WP:VPM given readership there and possible admin interest) Jalexander--WMF 20:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian

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

---

I've nominated Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian for deletion. Since it's likely to be watched by a partisan crowd, I think that a notification here is adequate. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, have we not had enough contentious discussions about this non-issue already. I urge everyone seeing this to ignore this entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox. It would be much better if people just let this lie for a while. I really don't see the benefit of stirring up another debate about it. 28bytes (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This was my opinion before the cfd/drv/etc. train started, and it's still my opinion now. - jc37 23:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that is less ignorable than a drama at Wikipedia is a rerun of the drama.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. I think it likely this was nominated by a partisan crowd. Tijfo, what's with the namecalling? Drmies (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm definitely not a Wikipedian. Or not a Wikipedian who is not a Wikipedian. It's easy to get confused. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It's the implication of the partisan crowd, which isn't new. Last time it was called a posse, I believe. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

HEY YOU!

I want YOU for arbcom

Hey You. Yes you. There are still very few people running for the arbcom elections. And it would appear that several current arbitrators will not be running again this year. There are apparently 8 seats to fill this time.

So we need YOU to offer your time to help out, offering your discerning perspective from your experience as a Wikipedian.

If you're interested, I strongly suggest that you take a moment and read User:AGK/ACE2012, to help prepare you for what you are about to undertake. And this to explain about the elections.

And for all you shy and retiring types: You are likely much more well known and respected than you might think.

I look forward to seeing you all at the elections : ) - jc37 21:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, I was rather hoping you'd start putting up Uncle Sam Posters. But seriously, if we're running so short of candidates, perhaps it's time we had a rethink of this whole arbcom thing? Heck, even if we had thousands of candidates, its probably time for a bit of a rethink anyway. --Chris 02:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We're still only halfway through the process; I think some current arbitrators might run again if they see no more candidates. There are quite a few good candidates already though. --Rschen7754 03:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

9 candidates for 8 positions - we at least have them all filled! I have zero experience in ARBCOM, meaning that I would not stand a chance anyway. What's the best way to go about changing that? GiantSnowman 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps such a thing would be seen as a positive characteristic; you're not a crony, not an insider, not a part of the existing apparatus. KInda like a football program that reaches outside its own sphere of coaching possibilities and picks a relatively unknown outside to shake things up. Hell, maybe I should run...wouldn't that be a blast? :) Tarc (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a disasterous campaign for ArbCom. WilyD 15:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Alas, that the days of "hugs and handjobs" being an acceptable campaign slogan are no more. ArbCom is now very much a 'serious business'. AGK [•] 15:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nod, seems so. And @ WilyD - I've personally been tempted more than once over the years, but as I noted on AGK's talk page, I doubt I have a chance. - jc37 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A chance isn't really the most important thing. I didn't really stand because I thought I had a chance - I stood because I felt the electorate deserved a wider variety of choices. WilyD 21:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So, let's see if I have the evolution line down correctly. First, you're an editor. Assuming you're not a wallflower gnome, you probably get into a certain number of disputes with other editors and, of course, take a certain amount of abuse. Once you've proven that you can handle that abuse without going absolutely ballistic (a little ballistic isn't a bad thing), you're nominated at RfA. Unless you're teflon-coated, you're now in a forum where abuse is sanctioned, and if you fight back, you're accused of badgering. So, you sit there and take it, and ultimately prevail, a newly-minted, already battered admin. You are now a target for even more abuse, but you have to respond with decorum befitting your new lofty station, not to mention policy, unless of course, when pushed too far, you go completely off the deep end, take a break (with everyone wishing you well - where were they before??), and come back refreshed, seemingly years older, and ready for more. You may or may not run for bureaucract (I'm not sure how well becoming a bureaucrat fits into my little satirical paradigm, but there is the recent bureaucract drama) so that you can belong to even smaller group of important wikipedians and be subject to additional abuse, although I think many editors don't even know crats (I hate that word) exist. Finally, you're invited to nominate yourself (you don't even get the backing of another admin as you do at RfA) to become a committee member, the pinnacle of something-or-other and where everyone (who even knows about wikipedia arbitration) can take shots at you (see the section below). You're right - it does sound very inviting. Where do I sign?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You got it, Bbb. I have already signed you up. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who managed to get this stuck in their head when seeing the thread title? Ah, dammit...now it will be there all day and all of the night.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually had "better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" going through my head ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

After reading AN/ANI, I always get Comfortably numb. Lectonar (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's all too much. Just One Step Beyond!. Britmax (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer Hey Ya!, sorry guys. Just don't tell my Dad... GiantSnowman 16:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, many AC decisions end up telling editors to Hey, you, Get Off of My Wiki, no? NE Ent 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is our house, after all (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just waiting for the Worm That Turned to chime in. Zad68 16:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing the image above to a slightly different poster. ;) — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and related cases

By a vote of 8-0 in response to a request for clarification, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

HotCat gadget enabled by default

Following the discussion at VP (proposals) I have globally enabled the HotCat gadget for all logged-in users. See also the request at the gadget's talk page.

If this causes any serious problems, feel free to roll back this edit of mine. If you notice non-critical problems, please report them at Wikipedia talk:HotCat. Lupo 08:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

IndianBio is attacking me

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 sir I want to report about IndianBio.He is attacking me.He doesn't know to how edit being friendly.He humiliates me.I revert his edit which was against reference.He opposed me.I added NPOV template,he said he won't follow.He misbehaves.He doesn't. Discuss on talk page.He only taunts me.pls help.(Pks1142 (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

As you have already been told (in two separate instances) on the Incidents board, you are not "being attacked" by IndianBio - you have a content dispute, which is under discussion on the article's talkpage. Unless you can provide diffs showing that IndianBio violated NPA (and I strongly suggest you actually read that page before continuing with your accusations), please stop posting frivilous requests here and at ANI. No right-thinking admin is going to block or sanction another user for disagreeing with you. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Need the help, from admin

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – content dispute, admin action not needed. Feel free to pursue dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

I have tried to make a minor edit to a page in relation to the 2012 US house elections. My edit kept getting un done. So I put in the talk page why I kept putting it back PLUS other pages which has the same edit to prove it common policy.

Page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012 bottom one....

But what caused this to be placed here? Some editor made some rather rude remake, and is trying to whitewash common policy. I could have made that edit 10 sec but I was polite and give other people plenty if time before I put them back in. Not because I had run out of edits. Even if all editors disagree it goes against making sure wiki stays neutral --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and it is not an admin's help you need. Admins use a mop and bucket to clean up messes, they don't intervene in disputes about content.

If you want your opinion to win the day you need to build consensus with care and politeness, and then abide by the consensus even if it goes against you. Complaining about things is not usually helpful. Feel free to complain if that is what you want to do, but please try to resolve things like this without involving others. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

it makes a mockery if it not changed to be inline with all other wiki pages in the same subject matter.--Crazyseiko (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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

G7 Speedy deletion request

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

---

Per this MfD post, Liverpoolmylove wants User:Liverpoolmylove/twinkleoptions.js deleted. The page is protected and won't allow any speedy delete tags from others. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

List of pedophiles

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

---

I've just speedily deleted and salted that nightmare out of process rather than let it exist for search engines to lead to while an AfD went on.

It is, at best an horrible BLP nightmare and coatrack; the definition of what would have gotten on this page is a timebomb, and given the lack of context it's would never have been possible to keep it away from undue weight. And, given the very high danger of name collision, it's immensely problematic even as search result extracts! Can you even think what this could do to someone whose name pops up a page named "List of pedophiles" on a search without enough clear context to quickly figure out it's someone else?

I welcome review of what I did or a DRV on the matter if needed, but I'm not going to let that page be recreated without an overwhelming consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Collect (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Common sense to act preemptively. There are no circumstances where such a list could be justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Such sex offender lists are maintained by government entities, but their lists can't be edited by just anyone. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And their definitions, at least, are predictably consistent. — Coren ^(talk) 16:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. But I agree with the deletion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly wasn't disagreeing with the deletion, I was merely mentioning that sex offender lists exist - but in a manner mentioned by Coren. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the immediate action, but to play devil's advocate, I would also argue that, ignoring the logistical nightmares of maintaining said list per BLP, that it technically is an encyclopedically valid list, akin to something like List of rampage killers. Of course, I would demand that sourcing be the highest reliable sources, and likely to only people with articles already. I would also consider, in terms of maintenance that the list would be locked down to only admin editors with editrequests used to make changes. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, a title change away from the current term (perhaps, "List of people charged with child sex crimes") which makes it less an attack on character than to a factual argument... --MASEM (t) 17:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Any such list (even "list of people charged with child sex crimes") would be a daily victim of students who think they're hilariously funny, and even some adults with similar levels of intelligence and humour (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to the nature of this type of article, this would be a case where we would use permanent admin-only protection to stop such actions. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Full-protection would almost certainly be needed, but I'd suggest a title of "List of people convicted of child sex crimes" rather than simply charged. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c x 3) I think the concept is flawed even in principle; what constitutes a "convicted paedophile" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, is disjoint of what psychiatry defines as "paedophilia" (which would also be a reasonable expectation from the page title), and has has nuances that a list format cannot accommodate. Lumping in a 20 year old who had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend (yes, there are jurisdictions where that will get you a conviction and posting on sex offenders lists) with someone who has raped prepubescent children over years is inflammatory beyond the capacity for a list disclaimer to fix. Individual articles can go into enough detail to understand the context, a list cannot – no matter how well sourced. — Coren ^(talk) 17:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If we limit it to only those people with existing articles and likely where the crime/charge has already been discussed, we avoid the issue of the extreme cases. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

To a point; you can't rely on people following links to get over the kind of first impression that can kill a job or ruin one's reputation. I think this is one of those cases where the likely harm vastly overwhelms the encyclopaedic value. — Coren ^(talk) 17:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like censoring this article from Wikipedia is easier than fixing Wikipedia's problems - like constant vandalism, pov pushing by anonymous editors, being used as the worlds largest defamation engine and so on. Way to to go, morons. Why don't you all take a break and upload some pictures of your wieners. That, at least, still seems to be celebrated under the banner of anti-censorship. --OppositeMan (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note - based on the contributions of OppositeMan (harassment, vandalism, NPA's), I have indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Feel free to change the block if you disagree (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a violation of WP:SOCK too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, its encyclopedic and essentially no different to any other type of crime in terms of notability. I think maybe a List of people prosecuted for sexual abuse of children or something along those lines, since charges can be dropped at a later point. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

absolutely NOT "prosecuted" - it would need to be "convicted" to have any potential as a valid wikipedia subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Prosecutions often generate just as much coverage as convictions, so in terms of notability I don't think we can set a higher threshold than what is generally perceived as good enough to be considered notable. Betty Logan (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's insanely irresponsible. People's lives are routinely ruined with accusations of child abuse – even when they were unsubstantiated and they were fully cleared of all charges. Even if there was overwhelming consensus to make a list of people who had actual convictions, a list of people just prosecuted would be downright evil. — Coren ^(talk) 17:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

your "insanely irresponsible" is much kinder response that I was coming back with. Thank you for the edit conflict which saved me from an WP:NPA violation! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's morally justified, I'm just pointing out that prosecutions are usually no less notable than convictions, in terms of the RS coverage they generate. Wikipedia includes tons of stuff that people would probably prefer to be left out of their articles, but being nice and decent isn't the criteria for inclusion, notability is. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Then, at best, this is a good argument that neither list belongs on Wikipedia. — Coren ^(talk) 17:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)But we are Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, and not Wikipillory or a tabloid searching for screaming headlines to draw readers in for the 24/7 news cycles. We can be better than them with very little effort and no loss of encyclopedic quality or content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

But how are these arguments any different to WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

while you are correct that I don't like the idea of Wikipedia being used to "name and shame", particularly those who have not been convicted, my dislike is fully backed by policy of WP:NOT and WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot see what is problematic with a bare list of pedophiles in an encyclopedia, then honestly you have no business being here. On another note, kudos to the block of "OppositeMan" above, I had dealings with this obvious sock recently. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) We are one of the top-10 web sites of the world, and arguably the primary source of encyclopaedic information for much of the anglosphere. What pops up in search results can ruin people's lives. Inclusion critera be damned (not that they actually support your argument; what may be good in the body of an article may not be acceptable as an isolated bullet point in a list) – we have a responsibility as human beings to avoid doing harm to bystanders our of sheer irresponsibility and lack of thought to the impact of what we do. — Coren ^(talk) 18:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, completely as devils advocate (all the reasons to delete make 100% sense) - we already disclaim ourselves as not reliable, not for medical advice, not for legal advice, etc. etc. If people are expected to be able to take an accusation made on a WP - at worst unsourced - as the basis to ruin someone's life in a legal manner, I would think they are far far outside any basis to follow this up, no worse than a random post in some blog or forum somewhere. We would only be including such incidents that a reliable source has already published - with the person's name - ergo we're not rumor-mongering ourselves. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Right – in the context of an article, that's a reasonable assumption. The problem with a list is that you're stripping most of that context away. I'm not saying your argument is unreasonable, but that the benefit of a list like this to the encyclopaedia is so marginal that the very real prospect of expectable harm from it popping up in search results tip the balance (far, IMO) on the side of "no". — Coren ^(talk) 18:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Good to kill it. Add to the above reasons the variability in definitions. For example, an 18 year old having sex with her 17 year old future husband is a pedophile in many jurisdictions. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well done Coren. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Ditto. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unnecessary endorsement from Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Good call. --Rschen7754 19:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with this deletion. In my personal capacity, though I have little doubt that my professional capacity would not differ. -Philippe (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  Woah, Philippe, do you have some sort of Gollum/Smeagol split? I should remind you that it's when both "sides" agreed that things went really downhill for the poor chap.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Meh. Rklawton (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely deserved deletion. As I've stated before (and as touched on above by Coren), pedophilia is accurately defined as the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (including those who look prepubescent), not as sexual attraction to those who have clearly developed secondary sex characteristics. Additionally, there are no laws against pedophilia. There are child sexual abuse and statutory rape laws, of course. But despite the media using "convicted pedophile" interchangeably with "convicted sex offender," there's no such thing as someone convicted of pedophilia. Unless you count Kansas v. Hendricks, which is about sexual offense in addition to the mental disorder, no country has any law against the mental disorder. Specifically, these laws are against the acts of sexually abusing prepubescent children or engaging in sexual activity with adolescent and/or teenage minors. It's age of consent and age of majority that vary from one jurisdiction/country to the next. If Coren hadn't brought up the "20 year old who had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend" example, I would have...as I've given such examples before (on and off Wikipedia) when trying to educate people on what pedophilia is and isn't. I never can grasp how people act as though there is some drastic physical and/or mental age difference between 16 and 18-year-olds and especially not when comparing 17 and 18-year-olds. There's not much difference in a 20-year-old being romantically/sexually involved with an 18-year-old as opposed to a 17-year-old. All three individuals are biological adults; it's just that, for most countries, one of them (the 17-year-old) still has yet to achieve legal adulthood. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW I agree - but are admins aware that there is also Category:Pedophilia, that includes some living people (such as Gary Glitter) and some dead and unconvicted people (such as Jimmy Savile). Is there support for removing them? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  IMO, I would, but given that categories don't tend to pop up in search engines there is much less of a sense of urgency in dealing with the matter. I certainly think that a discussion on whether that category is applicable to people is desirable. — Coren ^(talk) 21:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Righteous delete per Coren. NE Ent (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Just out of interest, was that in response to the thread here? Andreas JN466 22:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the thread here. Mogism (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Andreas JN466 01:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• It was the right call. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• 100% agreement. Well done Coren. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just reading a bio of a fellow who committed suicide after being accused of such things and 100 years later folks are still arguing about it. I am glad that you nipped this in the bud right away. einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

• A notice of further developments: The aforementioned deletion review was opened by User:Dream Focus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 18#List of pedophiles some hours ago. This being a noticeboard after all, let's have all of the discussion there, not here, please. Uncle G (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Article on user needs to be considered again....

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

---

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

A blacklist seems to be associated with that name. I don't understand why, as the person/character is noteworthy of an article on this site, and I've contacted some lawyers along with myself to resolve this issue. I hope anyone here is willing to reconsider allowing the article for open creation and edits. Thank you!

- Lawyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALawyerIsGood (talk • contribs) 02:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've indeffed the reporter for legal threats and probable sock puppetry. The article referred to was speedily deleted for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible BLP issue?

A user Cmp10111 (talk · contribs) has just posted "Please can this page be deleted as it is almost entirely untrue and part of an elaborate prank? Many thanks" in an AfD discussion for a child actor's BLP. However, it's not the original page creator. Previously the same account was used to blank the page [104], but that was reverted by a bot. Just bringing this to attention in case it's an issue. Not sure how these things are handled. §FreeRangeFrog 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely to be a prank, since PBS credits him on their website as appearing in one of their programs, but it does look like a lot of content was recently chopped from the article, presumably that is what they were talking about. For the record we do have a dedicated noticeboard for BLP issues at WP:BLPN. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, a reminder to notify users when you begin a discussion on AN about them (even if you're not requesting a block or other action against them). That said, he seems to object to the previous content of the article, and rightly so. He unsuccessfully attempted to remove unsourced and absurd content twice([105], [106]), before eventually being saved from 3RR by TRPoD [107]. That said, the article itself need not be deleted because of that content, and if the AfD debate determines that the article is notable then it will stay (though I rather doubt that will happen). I don't think any action needs to be taken, especially since the article's already in AfD, but someone could explain to Cmp10111 what's going on, since he seems to be confused and urgently seeking a deletion. Coppaar (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have revdeleted the versions of the article that contained all the unsourced content as it did contain some pretty serious BLP violations. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Courses extension is up and running

The Education Program extension for structured course pages for classes is now live. (It's actually been deployed for a few weeks, but unrelated platform updates introduced a critical bug that it took us a little while to fix.) Per the RfC on using the extension, it's now available for use by US and Canada Education Program, as well as whatever other courses the community chooses to use it for. See Special:SpecialPages#Education for the various features and lists of courses.

Admins now have the ability to create (and delete) institutions and courses, and to assign the user rights for "course coordinators" (non-admins who will be able to create and remove courses, mark people as instructors or volunteers, and use the rest of the extension features), "online volunteers" or "campus volunteers" (people helping out with courses, such as Online and Campus Ambassadors), and "course instructors".

I'll be beta testing it with one of the current classes, Education Program:University of Guelph-Humber/Currents in Twentieth Century World History (2012 Q4), as well as building up the documentation for course pages. Now's also the time to figure out how we want to use this for independent classes; it should make it easier to keep tabs on classes and catch problems early, so trying it out by offering it to a few classes that we discover editing on their own might be a good first step.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

How was this enabled when it was rejected by the community? 140.247.141.146 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of RFC closure

• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources

Could some uninvolved editors please review the closure of the above RFC. The discussion had been archived off the page for some time. The last comments were made 26 September, and at that point, there were 2 full supports of the proposal (the proposer and 1 other), 2 partial supports, and 8 fully opposed to the proposal. User:Eraserhead1 went out of his way to unarchive the discussion, close it, and enact the proposal as having consensus, in his words "consensus in favour". I know that consensus discussions are not a vote, but even being generous we have at best a 33% support to 67% oppose. That's not a consensus. When approached to reconsider by myself and several people, he has steadfastly refused to reconsider his closure, dismissing all of the oppose votes save one as "complete rubbish" (his words). Thanks to anyone who looks this over. --Jayron32 20:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Of note this discussion was listed in the "requests for closure" section at the top of this page as a discussion awaiting closure - that's why I closed the discussion.

With regards to why I closed it that way. Well I didn't see even a weak argument to explain how the previous position was protecting us from attracting libel cases (which is the point of WP:BLP). Additionally the sources in question which are all among the world's highest courts, seemed like the sort of sources that people would use anyway, so the prohibition seemed particularly counterproductive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The opposes did have clear, logical, policy based rationales, however. When you close a discussion, you aren't supposed to give your opinion on the question at hand, you're supposed to give a summation of the comments others have made. When you close an discussion based on your own opinion regarding answering the initial question, that's what WP:SUPERVOTE means. It's fine to vote on the discussion if you care about the outcome, but you shouldn't close discussions where you have a feeling one way or the other. The way you closed it makes it clear that you had an opinion of your own. You can't just discount people who oppose the proposal as "rubbish", and there were many reasons to oppose the proposal: libel concerns were NOT the only valid reason to oppose it. Several people opposed on other grounds; you can't just discount those reasons. Merely because there are people who argue differently that you would have doesn't mean their arguments are invalid. You need to give weight to all reasonable sides to the argument, and if you can't, you should vote for yourself and leave the closing to someone who can. --Jayron32 20:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If the opposes really have "clear logical policy based" rationales then it should be trivial for you to explain to me how the old way of doing things was protecting us from attracting libel cases. Given we are talking about the BLP policy here, what other rationales could be relevant?

With regards to opinions, I had no opinion on the matter before closing the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're stance here is that any oppose which isn't about "protecting us from attracting libel cases" is invalid. That makes no sense. One could argue (as several did) that the use of unanalyzed primary sources represents WP:UNDUE weight to those sources, which is against Wikipedia policy on both original research WP:SYNTH and presenting a point of view that exists in secondary source WP:NPOV. None of those arguments has anything to do with Libel, but are squarely grounded in Wikipedia policy. And those were the sorts of arguments you called "rubbish". Again, merely because the oppose votes weren't about "protecting us from attracting libel cases" doesn't mean they were invalid. Also, there were only two people who wholeheartedly supported the measure as proposed. Two. Changing a policy like BLP should be done on sturdier ground than the support of two people and the lukewarm support of two more. --Jayron32 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are issues with the use of these sources which are covered by other policies why exactly do we need to repeat ourselves in WP:BLP? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I went to go look at it, but the legalese seems to be above my head : )

That said, if no one else looks it over, I'll see if I can figure out what the discussion consensus is. But I'd rather someone a bit more fluent in the verbiage would look it over. - jc37 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a coherent argument in the opposition feel free to close it differently. I couldn't see one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well as I suggested at the top, the legalese verbiage is a bit beyond me. (IANAL). that said, I've re-read the discussion several times, and I think I see several arguements from both sides of the issue - Though to me, I see some other sub-"sides" to this as well. It seems one of the issues at hand is that quite a bit of things are combined into a few sentences on the policy page. At least a few of the opposers seem to agree with part, but disagree with part.

All that said, this is not an easy discussion to read : )

I think I'm going to have to re-read it a few more times... - jc37 21:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I really dislike ever using the term "supervote" when discussing a closure. For one thing, I (like most closers) have been accused of it myself in the past, (when I clearly was assessing the discussion and closing based upon it). Sour grapes after a close is not uncommon. That said, the wording of this closure is unfortunate in that it really does appear to look like a "vote" rather than an interpretation of the discussion. If nothing else, I might suggest rephrasing the closure. - jc37 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was an RFC. Discussion ground to a halt on 26 September. Nothing happened for 30 days when a bot moved the still open and ignored discussion into the archives on 26 October. On 5 November a request was posted the requests for closure subsection of this page (watched by 3600), where it lingered, untouched, for 11 days. Eraserhead1 reviewed the situation and made a decision. Now it's opposed by a participant in the discussion with a rationale including the self-contradictory arguments that it's not a vote while presenting the tally of the votes. Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_RfCs states "it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. " As amplified by WP:CLOSE "If discussions involve several individuals the discourse can become lengthy and the results hard to determine.. After a while, it is time to close the discussion so that the community can move on." (emphasis original) There's no policy provision for admin review of a content discussion (RFC). Unless evidence of involvement by the closer is presented, the community should support the work of a volunteer willing to close a discussion; If editor(s) are unhappy with the closure, I'd recommend a new RFC, perhaps with the question reworded for clarity. NE Ent 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is a key issue (how to use primary sources) in a key content policy. A significant change can't be pushed through by two or three people when there's clear opposition. So the close is moot, because it can't as it stands be enacted. We could go through the process of finding an admin to endorse or overturn the closure -- or we could just remove the closure and re-archive the RfC -- but I hope Eraserhead will take into account the opposition to his closure on the BLP talk page, and will himself withdraw it. It seemed so obvious to me that this was a failed proposal that I didn't even add an oppose myself, and I may not be the only person who acted that way, so this is in every sense an unexpected and unfortunate conclusion to the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly happy to rephrase the closure so that it doesn't override other policies aside from the change to WP:BLP.
  • With regards to not participating in the discussion, frankly that is your problem.
  • With regards to RFC closes it seems that WP:RFC offers no immediate right of appeal, perhaps you should focus your efforts on changing that policy so there is a formalised review option. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you could close it to summarize and reflect the consensus (which can't ignore numbers), rather than adding an opinion yourself, that would be appreciated. As for appealing, there is no formal anything. As things stand, your closure won't be enacted, and anyone can ask any admin to re-close. But I hope you won't make us jump through that hoop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

According to which policy or guideline? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: All closes are subject to review at WP:AN through long common practice. We just also have the benefit of some review processes like DRV or MRV for certain kinds of closures. If that isn't codified into some policy page, it should be. - jc37 21:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental problem even with review here is that every single time you close something remotely difficult you get whining about it. Frankly in the small number cases where an RFC gets closed incorrectly without a formalised review option spelt out in WP:RFC the easiest and simplest way forward is probably for another RFC to be held. That is probably the best way to avoid making the closer lose face and unfortunately probably the best way to avoid wasting too much time.

At the end of the day if I and the very small number of other closers stop closing discussions then the project will completely grind to a halt. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But in this case the issue had settled itself. The proposer had not gained consensus, and had allowed the RfC to be archived. This is a key part of a key content policy. It can't be changed so casually when there are more objections than there is agreement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

According to which policy or guideline does a proposal which gets archived automatically get closed as no consensus? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I agree a follow up RfC would be fine. (The more I read the discussion, the more I think it's difficult to see a clear consensus for anything from that discussion.) I merely was informing of common practice.

And I believe I noted about sour grapes after a close, above.

And while I might like to think I'm an important cog in the Wikipedia machine, we're all merely Wikipedians here, and can be replaced. (This speaking as a closer myself : ) - jc37 22:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The close seems all wrong, as it ignored what seems to be consensus to oppose. But I don't really care about the close of a conversation that I didn't participate in; I just don't want to see such odd and unique provisions being added to policy, on the suggestion of a few and the opposition of many. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"odd and unique provisions" - this is the best opposition argument so far. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• A couple comments:

1. I generally think Eraserhead1 does a good job handling the backlog at AN/RFC
2. this isn't going to be enacted no matter how the discussion is closed
3. Ignoring some comments may be appropriate sometimes; for instance if someone argues that we need to label all tomatoes as suspension bridges per BLP
4. Eraserhead1 asserts that the point of WP:BLP is "...protecting us from attracting libel cases"
5. The possibility of harming the subject is codified into the lead of the BLP policy ("...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.")
6. Ignoring comments that argued that BLP is, at least partially, about protecting living persons was not based in policy

I see no alternative but to overturn the closure and remove the current summary at the top. I think archiving the discussion with a simple "no change" result would be sufficient. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Side step

Instead of getting heavily involved in a back and forth discussing appropriateness of the closure, I think we can sidestep all of this and cite Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, and suggest that the discussion falls under "close calls and contentious discussions", which the page suggests "are best left to an administrator".

I personally would prefer to not unilaterally revert the closure under this guideline, but if others concur, we can just revert, and leave it for someone else to close. To paraphrase WP:ADMIN: "There's always another closer" - jc37 22:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If Eraserhead won't agree to remove the close himself, it seems clear that there's consensus enough for someone else to do it (in fact I think everyone commenting so far has said there was no consensus). It would be best if it were done by someone who did not comment during the RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given Dicklyon has presented an opposition argument that actually makes sense lets change the close to no consensus to avoid further drama. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The policy for deletion process is not applicable to RFCs. NE Ent 23:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That is merely one place where this common practice concerning closures is codified. That said, I would welcome it if you wished to start a discussion for codifying a standalone guideline for non admin closure. WP:NAC is currently merely an essay. - jc37 23:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

More urgently we need a review process codifying - and really a change to WP:CONSENSUS to clarify whether a supermajority automatically counts as a consensus would be good too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE - jc37 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So if supermajorities aren't automatically a consensus, barring Dicklyon's comment above, why was this even raised for review here? At best all we can say is that consensus was weak - which I think was a fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't raise it for review here, so I'm probably not the one to ask. I'm merely attempting to helpfully follow up on what others have asked. - jc37 23:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"By convention, administrators also normally take responsibility for judging the outcome of certain discussions, such as deletion discussions, move discussions, and move-review discussions" RFC is not on that list. The policy pages are pretty clear. The logical long term consequences of admins feeling entitled to simply overturn the good faith efforts of editors closing RFCs is they'll (non-admin editors) stop doing it. Given this RFC had fallen, unclosed, off the radar, this would not be beneficial for the Encyclopedia. The net effect is that "consensus" will be determine by the most persistent editors, willing to filibuster discussion until they succeed in getting their version in place, not by uninvolved volunteers acting in the best interests of the Encyclopedia. NE Ent 23:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Given in this case about two editors presented a decent argument in favour, and one presented a reasonable one in opposition (albeit here in the review rather than in the original RFC) I think it isn't worth fussing too much.

Frankly the comments about "consensus" being determined by the most persistent editors has been going on for ages - see the endless list of baseless challenges to my closures on my talk page and the endless list of discussions to close at the top of this page. The only really shocking aspect of this particular case is that the editors who have argued here have all been around forever and really should know better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the original closure statement [108] was effectively a !vote - which makes the entire closure inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The closure, in fact, asserted a positive "consensus" - if one wishes to assert a "consensus" there dang well should have been one. If a closer wishes to say "policy requires this close" and thus does not invoke "consensus" that would be a different matter - but the closer specifically said that a consensus existed, which was quite unapparent to all the folks who gave opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that when weighing up the arguments you are perfectly entitled to ignore positions that you don't think are valid, and in fact you should do that - otherwise you are just treating the matter as a vote. Additionally it seems from the above discussion that I was right to ignore their positions as while they managed to make some policy based arguments, all of them would be directly covered by other policies and thus didn't need repeating in WP:BLP which is all about preventing us getting sued for libel.

The only real point that perhaps I should have done better is that a consensus which only essentially involved 3 people or so should have been closed as no consensus by definition. Additionally I'm sorry my closure statement wasn't particularly well worded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not entitled to ignore arguments just because you personally don't think they are valid. That's clearly supervote behaviour - the discussion essentially becomes a contest to convince the closing administrator that their side is right, not to produce a consensus. You are allowed to discount clearly flawed or logically fallacious arguments, but not reasonable arguments that you don't find persuasive. It isn't realistic to expect participants in discussions about changing policy to cite policy to support their viewpoints. Otherwise it would be impossible to change any policies. Hut 8.5 11:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With regards to arguments I expected them to refer back to the point of the policy which is to avoid libel claims - which they utterly failed to do - thus the points weren't really valid.

Besides if you aren't allowed to discount arguments that aren't persuasive how are you supposed to assess a WP:CONSENSUS? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

An argument not being persuasive to you doesn't mean it isn't a valid position. The closer has to reflect the consensus of the discussion, not impose an opinion, and while numbers alone don't determine consensus, they can't be ignored either. If any single editor could close any RfC in any direction by discounting every opinion as unpersuasive to him personally, there would be no point in holding RfCs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Any close will be "imposing an opinion" at some level - that's what's being requested as we aren't closing discussions as a vote. What is important is that the closer doesn't come into the discussion with a pre-existing bias.

Ultimately to avoid bias from individual closers you need a healthy and sensible review option - and that is something we currently don't have. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussions are a vote to some extent. Your mistake was to ignore the numbers completely. And it looked as though you did have a bias, or at least a misunderstanding of the policy. You wrote: " It seems pretty obvious that this group of international courts are going to be impartial and serious ..." when (a) it's not obvious at all; and (b) that is not the point. The point is whether issues discussed by a court are notable, i.e. whether secondary sources have discussed them. That is part of the point of BLPPRIMARY -- to prevent editors from adding original research to BLPs based on issues raised only in court documents. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With regards to consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." - so WP:CONSENSUS in fact explicitly states that majority/minority views shouldn't be taken into account. If the community feels that you should take numbers into account to some extent then WP:CONSENSUS needs updating accordingly first.

It is also true that in general primary sources are worse than secondary sources, however when the primary source is one of the world's highest courts that doesn't seem likely to be a bad source - and therefore it isn't really going to protect the project from libel claims to explicitly prevent such sources from being used is it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It does not say that minority/majority views shouldn't be taken into account. It says that the numbers on each side are less important than the quality of an argument. This doesn't mean that the numbers on each side can't be taken into account. The barrier to discounting or assigning reduced weight to an arguments is considerably higher than "the closer doesn't agree with it". Arguments can be discounted for being logically fallacious, for being convincingly rebutted, for contradicting longstanding principle or wider consensus, or for many other reasons, but not simply because the one editor who is closing the discussion doesn't agree with them. The role of the closer is not merely to provide an previously uninvolved view of the situation (that's what participants do), and consensus is, at least in theory, independent of whoever closes the discussion. The last paragraph you wrote above strongly suggests you should have contributed an opinion to the RfC instead of closing it. Hut 8.5 17:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So what happens with disputed closes

Sorry to semi hijack this thread, but a similar case was virtually ignored. So in a general sense what is the process for dealing with disputed RFC closes. I assumed it was to bring them here, but if they are ignored here what is the next step. Does the original close stand, does it revert to a no consensus one or do we simply open up the RFC again and wait for another closer? AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In different ways all of those options are terrible (leaving the original close to stand is bad if the close was bad, and the other two lead to a minority being able to prevent anything other than no consensus by complaining - even if it is meritless), as is leaving it to rot here. so the simple answer is you're fucked.

At least until Jimbo and/or Arbcom imposes a sane solution on the community or the community grows up enough that they will accept some sort of improvement beyond the current status quo. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Aircorn, if the first close was a non-admin closure, you can ask an admin to endorse or overturn it. If it was an admin closure, you can ask two others (admins or experienced editors) to look at it again, or a bureaucrat (if it's an important policy issue, for example), and so on in effort to gain consensus. There are no rules about this; it's a question of common sense, and I have never seen a case where it didn't work out, so long as enough people were involved.

It's unlikely the requests for review would be ignored if worded clearly and posted to the right places, though it might take some time for people to respond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Although this seems fairly sensible this is all something that you've made up, and isn't in any way codified, so really it is up to the discretion of the individual closer.

Additionally as with any review it is also dependent on admins and others being willing to review closures, which frankly doesn't seem to be happening. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to step in here and disagree respectfully, but strongly, with SlimVirgin's statement "If the first close was a non-admin closure, you can ask an admin to endorse or overturn it." That is a completely and totally wrongheaded view of what adminiship is. Admins are not given special magical override power on anything at Wikipedia, and that includes closing discussions. Admins have tools that allow them to block, delete, and protect. And that is all. Admins don't have a "override closure" tool. If a closure by any editor is believed to be in error, the correct procedure is a) ask the editor to reconsider and b) ask the community to review it. There is no special administrator power to overturn a closure unilaterally. --Jayron32 23:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The closing editor (a non-admin if that matters) was asked about their close and they stood by it. However, they were more than happy to have the closure reviewed. It has been brought here twice and archived without resolution twice. The first time one admin offered to close it under certain conditions, but the person filing the review request did not appear to accept those conditions (not sure whether that was the reason it went no further). The second time it did not attract a single comment. Here is the diff of the latest question,[109] to which the answer appears to be that no one is willing to take it on (understandable, but not very useful). I don't know what the next course of action in this situation is. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent discussion on ANI -- closing by Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs) included statement: "The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered ..." I haven't seen compelling evidence the concept admins have special status in RFCs (not Afd, not move discussion, etc.) is supported by any community wide consensus. I've started Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Review . NE Ent 17:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec; reply to Eraserhead) I haven't made it up; I've been here for years and that's how I've seen RfC reviews being handled. It's a process that's rarely needed and seems to work well -- the problem with writing it down is that it would become inflexible.

I agree that there's a problem with getting people to close things. I think this is partly caused by people not structuring RfCs clearly. When I open one, I open a section for non-threaded replies (for "the vote," which our ideology says doesn't matter, but of course it does), and a second section for threaded discussion. I do that to save the poor closer having to wade through everything trying to pick out the key comment from each person. I've looked myself a few times at the AN/RFC board intending to close a few, but I end up not doing it because of the mass of comment I'd have to read. If we could persuade editors to streamline their RfCs a bit more, I think more people would be inclined to close. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With regards to your first comment, I disagree. It might be OK for you to not have it written down, as clearly you have a strong personality. However for people with weaker personalities, or for newer closers, it would be of great benefit. I'm also not really clear on what benefits there are in this case of being flexible that you wouldn't be able to use WP:IAR for.

With regards to structure I'm sure that is an issue - but it is also an issue that can be easily addressed. Simply add a list of example well structured RFC's to the policy and/or templates people use. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I might be inclined to review a massive wall of text if I didn't know that anyone who didn't like my conclusion could just go whining "it wasn't closed by an admin." The statements "It's a process that's rarely needed and seems to work well" and "there's a problem getting people to close things" are incoherent. NE Ent 17:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the first time, after which it was pointed out that there were no admins willing to make closes, no-one has made any reference to any closure being made by a non-admin. I'm not really convinced that you wouldn't get exactly the same treatment as an actual admin, and that is why so few admins are willing to close discussions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The non-admin status of the closer was a key element of discussion in the ANI discussion I linked above. NE Ent 18:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• The question when reviewing a close here should not be what the best close is, or would have been, but only whether the close was reasonable. In my view the process should always be to ask the closer to reconsider, and then if they stand by the close, to bring it here for review. Outside of deletion and move discussions, admin or non-admin really is not relevant. A closer of a discussion must exercise considerable judgement to weight conflicting guidance on what weight to give various statements. On the one hand discussions are not a !vote, so weight must be assigned to various points. On the other, the closer must not override the judgement of the commenting editors with their own, and remember that in most cases WP:IAR allows a discussion outcome to go against even policy if there is sufficient consensus for it. That is why the standard of review when a close is brought to AN should be only that the close was reasonable. So if the closer is uninvolved, and closes the discussion in a way that is reasonably supported by the discussion, then the close should go undisturbed. Editors who disagree strongly enough can always open a new discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 19:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Really old RfD backlog

The Redirects for discussion backlog has unclosed discussions from October 19. It would be much appreciated if some admins could work on this. Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it's back to October 3 Ego White Tray (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet more evidence that we need to completely reform the closure process. FWIW RFC's have a backlog to the beginning of September.

And seriously if the project isn't going to die then we actually need to solve this problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You think the project is going to die if old "Redirects for discussion" and "Request for comments" aren't closed? Really? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If we can't make decisions about anything how can the project survive? Redirects may not matter, but RFC's, AfD etc etc. all do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thousands, if not millions, of decisions which affect the encyclopedia are made and executed every single day, by individuals and by group consensus. That a limited number of - perhaps thorny, but also perhaps trivial - questions haven't been closed out is not, in my mind, of such great consequence that it threatens the survival of the project. Yes, it would be nice if things got done, but it's hardly of such urgency as you portray. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

How can we know that? Roman Empires, Soviet Unions, Myspace, Yahoo (close to), Hostess Brands -- lots of longstanding institutions can suddenly reach their tipping point. WP has a a quarter million unreferenced articles. Getting stuck on an issue, requesting help with an RFC and getting no help is not encouraging to editors. At some point a critical mass of dissatisfaction could snowball. It's arrogant to think that Wikipedia is invulnerable to the same force of histories that tend to sweep away complacent organizations. NE Ent 19:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I had not previously come across the theory that unclosed "Redirectionum ad Discussionem" had brought down the Roman Empire. I though it had something to do with lead in the dishes and barbarians at the gate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, just as it's more important that discussions are closed correctly than that they are just closed, it is more important that articles be factually correct than that they are referenced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparing Wikipedia to societal or political collapses, or even underwater companies, seems a tad dramatic. This really isn't a big deal; backlogs, even severe ones, are nothing new whatsoever, and this particular issue isn't even that daunting; RfDs are still being routinely closed, it's just that no one's bothering with the more contentious ones. Now that it's brought to our attention, I'll start taking a look and I'm sure other admins will as well, and we'll get it resolved. Swarm ^X 19:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The most contentious ones always drip to the bottom of the backlog. Admins just don't want to touch them. I should know, I have been on a few of them, waiting for weeks and weeks...... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Caught up a bunch. Backlog now only to Oct 30. - jc37 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

well, thanks for the help. I posted here already some weeks ago without response. I wouldn't say that noon has been bothering to close contentious ones, rather since summer with a few regulars we've been shifting this backlog merely over.[110] One point at RFD is low participation so they stay often open to see if some has a new argument or in sight . --Tikiwont (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps one step to getting attention would be to consolidate venues, and combine it with either AfD or MfD. There are a limited number of things (classically, 7±2 ) that people can pay attention to. DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know. For example, the arguments for RfD and CfD are so different, the difference is bigger than the difference between Spanish and English wikipedia. The arguments for keep/delete/merge in one of those areas are really alien to the arguments in the other areas. They even have different rules for NPOV....
• Maybe a special page where all backlogs are visible at a glance? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways

image added here by Shaz0t (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Foundation is trying something new and worth bringing to the attention of the admin here. Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations is the page with actual nominations. As someone who is a bit focused on editor retention, I would ask admin to stop by, take a look, perhaps nominate someone and drop off a vote. This is one of those situations where we have a chance to simply and publicly show a little appreciation to the people who actually create content (or admin, it isn't limited), via a kind and sincere comment. The key is keeping it a positive experience. I personally think it is a good morale booster, even for those who don't walk away with a free t-shirt. My understanding is that this is just the first of many give-aways. While being held on enwp, it isn't limited to enwp editors. Please consider spending a few minutes to participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of English Wikinews

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.

---

Of possible interest, I have started a proposal to close English Wikinews. 86.152.61.18 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Backlog and cherry-picking cases on SPI

I'm concerned about the procedure for handling of cases at the WP:SPI. I filed a case regarding a repeat sock puppeteer on November 10, complete with a flock of ducks and no request for check user, that should have been a 10-minute no brainer to close. Nine days later, it's still sitting waiting for processing, with two older cases (filed 11/6 and 11/7) ahead of it. Meanwhile, as of this writing, there are roughly a dozen more recent filings that were closed and awaiting archiving, a pattern I've noticed daily as I've checked on the progress of my filing; over the nine days, I'd estimate at least 30 newer cases were handled while mine and the others cited languished. At this point, I'm struggling to understand why; most appear to be equally mundane cases cherry picked by the handful of admins who are taking action on SPI. This may be perfectly appropriate practice, but if it is, that's not apparent to me, a garden variety Wikipedian. So at this point, I'm asking two questions: a) how are priorities for handling these cases set and; b) how much longer should I reasonable expect a comparatively routine filing such as mine to sit? This isn't my first rodeo, but I've never had one take more than a couple of days to be addressed before now. --Drmargi (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• As a mere clerk trainee, I can only offer my limited perspective. I do a lot of other things other than SPI, as do most clerks, but I typically jump on cases first that I have seen before simply because I am familiar with the PuppetMaster, so it is faster and easier to deal with those cases than say, a new sockmaster that I've never seen before. Sometimes I will endorse having a Checkuser run a CU check on someone and it is done in an hour, sometimes it sits for days, I assume for the same reason. We are pretty much constantly understaffed over there. Not so much by clerks, but by patrolling admin. Any admin can do everything a clerk can do except endorse or decline CU, and some mundane paperwork. Those are getting done, but what isn't getting done is the matching up the left and right sock and taking action, which only requires the admin bit. SPI is an often frustrating place to work, as some cases are obvious, some cases take an hour to look up, and sometimes what looks obvious to one person, in reality isn't. It is always more obvious to the reporter, who knows the master, knows the sock, knows the article content and has often seen the same pattern time after time. For those of us stumbling in on a case we have never seen anything on, we have to have a very high degree of confidence when blocking, so it takes us much longer. And keep in mind, sometimes a case might look like nothing has happened, when an admin or clerk may actually have researched it, and is simply on the fence and chooses to do nothing because they aren't confident enough to mash the big red button and block someone. The best solution is for more admin to patrol and help us keep the backlog down to just a few days, but it is purely voluntary and fairly thankless, so the line of volunteers is short. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• If a CU is "on the fence" about a case, do they consult other CUs for their opinion?

  I think that rampant socking is a much more serious problem for the project than, for instance, unclosed discussions, since socking is frequently associated with sneaky vandalism that is difficult to correct because the material looks, superficially, OK, and takes some research or knowledge of the subject to see and fix. Of course, it would help if we would institute registration before editing... Beyond My Ken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I handled a bunch of SPIs last month when Dennis Brown posted here about a backlog but found the whole thing rather frustrating, with problems including (roughly in order of severity):

• Bad, poorly written documentation, spread out across multiple pages with important information hidden in obscure places, that makes it unclear who is allowed to do what.
• Too many cases that just don't need to be there, either because it's unactionable (eg, reporting a dynamic IP which made a single edit three weeks ago, where the puppetmaster has long since moved on) or because it's crashingly obvious socking that can be handled in 10 seconds at AIV or RFPP (eg, an account gets blocked, then five minutes later an IP turns up to continue the same fight), and so on. Possibly caused by the aforementioned documentation problem
• Too many cases where the initiating party just links to the suspected sockpuppet's contributions, providing no explanation or diffs that link them to the sockmaster. Reviewing a case like this takes three times as long as should. (On the other hand, I am totally sympathetic to the fact that filing an SPI is a massive chore when you know 100% that they're a sockpuppet and you've been dealing with this tiring user for ages now)
• A lack of helpful information in the table at WP:SPI#Cases currently listed at SPI to judge which cases need the most attention. I don't know about anyone else, but I was picking cases to review based on how much I liked the sockmaster's username. It was as good as any other method. Given that SPIs can sometimes be quite long, and quite numerous, I can understand why they're not transcluded onto the main project page, but I feel the bot could do a bit more. For example: highlight cases that have been open for a while with no admin/clerk/checkuser edits, or report the number of edits to the page and the number of users (so we know which ones have been lingering with no input). Or something that makes picking a case to review less random.

I have a couple of other personal peeves with the approach of some of the SPI regulars which made me feel that my input wasn't desired there, but the four points above are the main issues imo that are bogging down SPI right now. – Steel 03:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful explanations. It's hard for the average soul to appreciate the decision-making process some times. I still don't see why my easy-peasy one sat so long, but never mind, it's done now. But more importantly, I do have a better appreciation for the factors that govern some of the choices made. It wasn't my intention to challenge anyone, which everyone (thankfully) appears to have understood, just to have a better grasp of what figures in to getting these things done. --Drmargi (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't this a personal attack?

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Why_isn't_this_a_personal_attack?

Definitely an incident. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Kiranreddy9999

Kiranreddy9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in the creation of multiple low-quality articles about the location of India where he apparently resides. It's incredibly difficult to deal with these as they come up in NPP. I've fixed a few, PRODed a few, and posted in his talk page asking him to examine the article creation process and MOS to improve his contributions. Is there some kind of "timeout" that can be imposed on users so they take notice about the problems their contributions are creating? This is not a new user, he has a long history of contributions but as far as I can see he/she does not respond to notices in the talk page. A few examples:

• Nizamabad Sportspersons
• Nizamabad Film Artists
• Nizamabad Politicians
• Dichpally Ramalayam
• Tadpakal Pushkaram
• Village Development Committes in Nizamabad Andhra Pradesh
• Kandakuthi Triveni Sangamam
• Sirnapally Waterfalls

Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 17:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• This user is continuing to create poor quality articles despite this report, see e.g. Nizamabad Tourism. MER-C 10:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And yet no responses from any any admins. §FreeRangeFrog 19:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Short of revoking editing privileges entirely, leaving a black mark in a log, no. Uncle G (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. So, what's the OP here? Just mark the stuff for deletion as it is created? Some of it (very little) is salvageable because of minor historical notability, but most of it is not. §FreeRangeFrog 21:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    • There's no one answer, because those articles vary in quality. I wrote User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage from long experience as a New Pages Patroller, and what I do when faced with two of those articles with my NPP head on is wikify, copyedit, and stub sort. "Fixed a few, PRODed a few." is what we end up with, yes. Uncle G (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. §FreeRangeFrog 03:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Fictional entry?

I've just discovered this little snippet among the "Harvard Guide to Using Sources" named What's Wrong with Wikipedia? where it is stated that:

Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.

Has this article already been found and deleted, or could it be that it is still around here? I'm just asking, because there is a suspicious article about a guy named Chen Fang, supposed former mayor of Yinchuan, created by an ip-user whose only contributions were acts of vandalism, all done on September 25, 2005. One of those was the addition of an apparently non-existent Pennsylvanian company called "Fang Technologies" to the List of companies of the United States by state and the only source supposed to confirm the existence of the aforementioned Chen Fang was added in 2009, but the link actually leads back to the website of Harvard University, and it is probably not a coincidence that it was added by an ip-user that can also be traced back to Harvard. Quite a few other ips coming from Harvard have edited as well, including vandalism on Dec. 6, 2006. I've tried to find out who was the actual mayor of Yinchuan at that time, but my Chinese obviously isn't sufficient to handle such a task. Anyway, the available evidence points to this article as the one mentioned in the above quote, it is in all probability fake and should be deleted at least for violating WP:BLP, since there are no sources confirming any of the information presented. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC))

Somebody should also notify the guys at the Norwegian Wiki, since the article has been translated into bokmål and it would be too bad if this piece of mockery would survive there. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC))

I've nominated Chen Fang for speedy deletion as a hoax. If I'm wrong, we don't have an article on a probably non-notable person, not a big deal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The linked guide has no author or publication information -- It doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia standards for a reliable source. NE Ent 23:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Blitzed it. It was deleted a few days after creation in Feb 2005, then recreated that Sept. Doubt about it on the talk page dates to July 2008. I'll add to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia if nobody else gets round to it. Fences&Windows 23:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk page of the equivalent article on the Norwegian Wikipedia pointing out that our article has been deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI - The administrator in no:wiki, who was mislead to enter the article stub there, has now deleted the entry. TorSch (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised that Wikipedia vandalism and the crappy logic shown in the guide is actually official Harvard policy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article did survive after all for more than 7 years so they are kinda right about their policy, it's hard to deny. Problem is it's only a single minor case, and they are making a big deal out of it. Bharel (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bruce Reyes-Chow

Bruce posted an article on his Patheos blog about vandalism to this article. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/breyeschow/2012/11/20/wikipedia-heretic-cat/

It does not appear to be high volume vandalism, mostly from 151.201.12.39 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), but with the very public notification of it I thought you should have a heads up. If a couple of folks could add this to your watchlist, would be much appreciated. Thanks! Oh, And hi everyone! Pastordavid (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the disruptive user Shaz0t has been active on that page too. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)