It seems fairly clear that consensus supports a formal ban on Acoma Magic. Any further socks can be WP:RBI'd. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After Acoma Magic's indefinite block for edit warring and block evasion, he has created eight sockpuppets (five confirmed, three suspected). He has a history of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. His confirmed socks are UK and Australia-centric and edit in the same subjects of LGBT (woth the same POV issues), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games over five months since the block. The same issues remain with removing POV tags on articles such as Big Society ([1]), which his most recent sockpuppet did after the previous Acoma sockpuppet was blocked. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. This last round of sockpuppetry is the final straw. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community.
Support. We really need to introduce something into the banning policy — something like "a blocked editor who has been caught socking X number of times is to be considered banned by default". People like this definitely need to be told to get-out-and-stay-out, but these pro forma ban discussions really aren't necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Here and now isn't the place to do that; I'm not objecting to what you're doing in particular. I'm just expressing my frustration at the situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
See the "Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers" section of WT:BAN, where I've proposed enacting this idea into policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Support ban. Funnily enough, I made the same suggestion as Nyttend in a previous site ban discussion for an even more prolific sockpuppeteer. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Support — More important than the fact that he is evading the indefinite block placed on his original account is the fact that he continues to do exactly the things that got him into trouble in the first place. A site ban will prevent him from being able to continue disrupting LGBT-related articles, especially as this seems to have been the sole focus of his editing career. Kurtis(talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Already defacto banned. The "defacto ban" was relentlessly pushed by a clique of editors some time ago and forced back into the banning policy page. Now those editors who insisted upon that are nowhere to be found, even though at the time they were raising holy hell about how AN/I was "littered with pointless ban discussions". Anyway, according to their "defacto ban" thing, this blocked editor is already banned so we should apply that policy as it is written. - Who is John Galt?✉ 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
When I asked that I was shouted down by a mob who said that these discussions are a waste of time. Here are some of the discussions that took place (although I was not involved in these) [2], [3]. Loo kat how much time was wasted on that foolishness, and now the people who pushed for it don't even care anymore. Anyway, if De Facto banning is enshrined as part of the policy, it should be applied as written. - Who is John Galt?✉ 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
That explains your general stance on policy, but that doesn't explain why you always preface it an "Oppose" instead of something like "Comment" in these particular ban proposals. You don't seem to especially oppose that this particular person, so why voice your general opinion on bannings here? Will two types of bans cancel each other out? Do bans cost money, and we're on a budget so we need to ration them? Of course not. So why oppose "2 layers of being banned" here? (Ultimately it doesn't matter that much, as you seem to interject this in discussions of near-unanimous support for bans, but it seems like these sorts of comments make consensus harder to find for the closer...) Sergecross73msg me 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
For those confused by this oppose, it is actually a passive-aggressive support. No doubt one of the "clique" of editors he's referring to is me. I won't hijack this thread by yet again explaining my reasons for thinking these ban discussions are stupid and actually harmful, but I'd be happy to explain further to anyone who's curious, elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, you make some good points there. - MrX 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I have no problems with the thought process in general, just merely with how it was being used as a rationale as an "Oppose" in particular scenarios. Thanks for some clarification. Sergecross73msg me 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It's really not meant to be passive-aggressive or to single out individuals. All I want is for the policy as written to be adhered to. We spent so much time in the past derailing ban discussions and hashing this all out in various forums, with the end result being that defacto bans were in force. Maybe I just wish people had better memories and were more consistent. It's probably my own personal failing. - Who is John Galt?✉ 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
SupportOppose he was blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, then indeffed for socking. While he is defacto banned already, he should be given the chance to convince an admin that he will no longer sock nor edit war. I don't see either of these things happening, but his sock edits, while some are POV, aren't entirely problematic. There are serial sockpuppet farms that have existed for YEARS that have never been cb'ed. AM should be treated no differently. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC). I didn't realize this was at AN, so I'm not sure if my !vote was appropriate, hence am striking.littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 19:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Even if he is given a chance, unfortunately, AM's behavior is still problematic especially with POV issues. He has been doing the things that he has gotten into trouble in the first place and AM's disruption has got to stop. On top of that, he has created sock puppets with the same patterns given his history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not opposed to officially banning Acoma Magic; I'm just not sure what good it would do. My preference would be that he would own up to the wrong doing and take the standard offer. As I've said before, some of his edits are actually good and his POV would not be troublesome if he didn't aggressively insist on forcing it into articles by edit warring and arguing over minutiae. Can anyone convince me that banning Acoma Magic will result in any less time in dealing with SPI reports and reverting his edits? What's the upside?- MrX 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
If he is banned, any edits by a banned user, whether the edits are either good or bad, will be reverted and are exempt from 3RR. But man, oh man, do policies and guidelines keep changing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you were responding directly to me, but "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." according to WP:EVADE. - MrX 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I was responding to you. I can understand where you're coming from, but I was only pointing out something according to the banning policy. Anyway, this discussion is about a community ban on Acoma Magic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Toothless policy. How is anyone to know the sock is a banned user without risking themselves in the process? The standard offer is probably a better way to go. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Support - Although indef blocking and banning hugely overlap each other, I see no reason not to support a community ban, if for no other reason than to send a message to Acoma Magic that the community is tired of wasting time on his dishonest, disruptive behavior and that the that path to re-joining the community is the Standard offer. - MrX 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Support I strongly support this proposal being familiar with this editor. He/she makes unsourced additions and if sourced uses unreliable sources. Plus he/she has a ridiculous POV. This is way overdue. Pass a Methodtalk 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support - The "commentary" below makes it pretty clear that the user is not willing to follow policy or act constructively. Sergecross73msg me 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Support - per the subject's actions below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - This is Acoma Magic. Sorry for being late, been busy and I don't check the talk page of AM often. Before you all get menstrual, I assume this was an invite - [4] and since my AM account can't edit its own talk page I may as well comment here. I don't know if the community ban and standard offer are mutually exclusive options. It doesn't matter because they are both shit policies anyway as the community ban does nothing and the standard offer wastes 6 months of good editing time for those that obey it and rewards skilful sock puppets that don't. Who came up with these? Didn't anybody point out that they were stupid at the proposal discussion? Anywho... as I read Wikipedia almost everyday, I can't resist improving an article that I find a flaw in so the standard offer isn't possible. Would a restriction to 1 revert for 6 months be suitable? Bootore (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not, especially for someone who seems to refuse to acknowledge virtually any relevent policies you're breaking. Sergecross73msg me 20:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be assuming that, as I frequently reference policies and try to follow them wherever possible. I only have problems with edit warring and socking, which my proposal would solve. Also, regarding your edit at the above section, I'm trying to follow policy and act constructively with this proposal. Rutgut (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If the policies are bad, then it would seem that you might want to be a part of the community and lobby to change them, that is, if you actually care about building an encyclopedia. As it stands, you're not in a advantageous position to negotiate a better offer, given your history and the attitude that you're displaying here. If I were in your shoes, and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, I would start by admitting that I was wrong, committing to not repeat the same behaviors and I would apologize to the community for wasting their time chasing after my socks. - MrX 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's much better, as a 1R restriction will piss me off a lot. I admit that edit warring is a problem and the 1R restriction will prevent that behaviour. I apologise to most (possibly all) of the people that have spent time that was related to my socks. The reason I say most is that I don't agree with the very selective interpretation of what a revert is that got me blocked and how the three reverter got off fine and therefore I offer no apology to those involved in that who subsequently spent time related to my socks. Rutgut (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Per this suggestion - [5] I request that Acoma Magic be temporarily unblocked so I can edit this discussion topic. I'll only edit this discussion topic with it. Just1edit (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I tried three times but I got this message every go: "A database error occured when attempting to process your request:
Failed to connect to database server!" Just1edit (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if that's a good idea, but I think AM is disrupting the discussion again. Not good. Would a block on him be a good idea or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we usually let blocked users participate in discussions of which they are the subject. AM will either successfully get (temporarily) unblocked through UTRS or will have to wait for a helpful admin to see this. Of course, creating sockpuppets to join a discussion is usually frowned upon, but hell, why not go for broke! - MrX 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not sure if that's a good idea, but we'll see what we can do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want to contribute to the discussion, don't create a new account to do it. Just leave any comments you have at User talk:Acoma Magic and they will be copied and pasted here. I have lifted the talk page block on that account. You only add more and more evidence to your likely ban every new account you create, and creating new accounts will only make matters worse. Instead, just leave comments on your talk page and they will be posted here. If you use your talk page to disrupt, I'll re-revoke your talk page access and you'll have to use the UTRS system to make any further requests. --Jayron32 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems UTRS has just gone down. I'm on it.--v/r - TP 01:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Can this discussion be moved to ANI? I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss a CB at this venue, as it is more of an admin-only hangout. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 03:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
If it's moved to ANI, someone will complain that it's not an incident requiring admin action, so I would recommend leaving it here. I believe that is standard procedure for community ban discussions anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). - MrX 03:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what else we can do here. Per Jayron32, we should simply leave comments on AM's talk page and these should be posted here. Also, I believe AM is chronically incompetent due to his POV issues and edit warring. We do not let the blind drive buses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user unfortunately couldn't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Lately, there is a bad trend of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior and it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. I am totally concerned that this desperate advocacy on AM's behalf is accomplishing nothing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I certainly hope that comment wasn't aimed at me. You might recall that it was me who opened the recent SPI that got his months old sock blocked. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 01:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand it was you who opened the recent SPI and my above comment was referring to AM. And to clarify, no personal attack was intended on my part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
A new editor has taken up the position that Govgovgov (a now-blocked Acoma Magic sock) was putting in the discussion at Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous#Specific sentence. I would appreciate input on the editorial question being raised in that section as blocked editors certainly can be right. Attention might also want to be devoted to the question of whether the new editor is a sock or not - about which I express no opinion. I will note this post in the t:HA discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The new editor shot himself in the foot and is now blocked as a sock. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unblocked by Monty845. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't edit ANI right now; it's been semi-protected for the past half-hour [6].
I've tried to help out by reporting one of the problems [7], but that was reverted [8].
I asked why it was reverted [9], and that was reverted too [10]. And again [11][12] and again [13][14].
Sorry to post here, but, there's not many places I could ask for help. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The user you tried to revert is now blocked. No comment on everything else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"I have now been blocked from editing; I have no idea why. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)" I've copied this from the IP's talk page, and like the IP I have no clue why a block's been levied. I've asked the blocking admin to comment on the IP's talk. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Here's my take on the situation — this anonymous user made a perfectly valid report to AIV, which wound up reverted by Seb az86556 without explanation. The IP, visibly very frustrated and offended, asked Seb about it (in a rather aggressive tone) on his talk page, only to once again be reverted (and again, no explanation given). The IP editor became even more upset and re-added the header; again, reverted. His next move is to post a different, more civil message; Seb reverts with slightly more in the way of an explanation ("Stop it"). After that, the IP starts up this discussion and notifies Seb, whose response at this point is fairly predictable (this time saying "Read"). Bwilkins proceeds to block the IP address for 24 hours due to "disruptive editing". When they asked for an unblock, this was the blocking administrator's response. Ched was also left scratching his head in confusion over the situation, but Bwilkins basically told him to do a quick review of the IP's actions as if it were self-evident in their contribution history. I went ahead and did so myself. Other than the poor choice of words in confronting Seb and continuing to post there after it was clear that he had no interest in explaining himself, he had done nothing wrong.
So what happened to editor retention, anyways? Is that out the window all of a sudden? Kurtis(talk) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to bring more attention to this, hopefully to get more insight from other editors and administrators on how best to proceed. This user has been blocked for three and a half hours now, yet no one has made a move to unblock or anything. A few administrators have commented critically about the action undertaken by Bwilkins, but none have explicitly expressed a willingness to unblock him. I've made my stance clear directly above, and I would like to see this block lifted immediately. Aside from their obvious (and frankly, justifiable) frustration, there does not appear to have been any egregious disruption coming from them. Kurtis(talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Bwilkins saw in 88's contributions that lead him to block. I don't see anything in here that would classify as disruption. It's clear from the contributions that 88 is not a new editor, but that is not prima facie evidence of disruption, and I saw nothing else of concern. Absent a better reason for blocking, I support an unblock. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Unblock IP. Block Bwilkins indefinitely until xe learns how to properly use the block function. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
But, is indef-blocking a respected administrator a little too much? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course it is. Everyone makes mistakes. In this situation, the system worked like it should, catching and correcting the mistake. End of story, nothing more to see here, move along and happy editing! -- LWGtalk 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Unblock now unless someone can point to an actual problem. We should not expect that the right of Seb az86556 to remove talk page messages with no comment other than an edit summary of "read" to be understood by everyone. Is there some backstory behind all this, or is it just a misunderstanding? I looked at several of the IP's comments and they were fine, and in fact showed a helpful attitude which should be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Monty845 unblocked before I could. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
To elaborate on my unblock message, I can sort of see where Bwilkins was coming from, the tone of the message that started this was inappropriate, and we generally act quickly to block someone when they repeatedly add an inapproriate message to a user's talk page after that user has removed it. And while warnings may be best practice, they are not strictly required. But what really tipped the issue for me was that until the block message and following discussion, no one directly communicated about the issue with 88.104.27.2. There was no edit summary for the AIV revert, and the edit summaries at the user talk page hardly provided any information to 88.104.27.2. At least for routine matters, we need to at least try to communicate before resorting to a block, and I didn't see that here. If 88.104.27.2 had received any warnings, even a template one (which don't seem to lead to dialogue very often), I would have left the block alone. Monty845 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
When I began the discussion of the block, I did it by saying to Bwilkins something like "I want to unblock, but it's not such a clear-cut situation that I'll do it immediately without your input". Nyttend (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I wanted the situation resolved as quickly as possible; the longer this user remained block, the greater the likelihood that they would become dispirited with Wikipedia and its community by a large. The overwhelming consensus is that they should not have been blocked to begin with, thus warranting an immediate unblock. 88.104.27.2 was also wrongly reverted at AIV, and although their subsequent request for an explanation was lacking in good grace, the situation became severely exacerbated by the fact that nobody made any effort to communicate with them. This person, who is obviously experienced and has made several constructive edits, was being treated like a common troll.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is nothing for admins to do here. Requests for Bwilkins to say or do things should be directed to his talk page. 28bytes (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for unblocking.
Per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like Bwilkins to acknowledge that this was a bad block. That seems to be the 'overwhelming consensus' above.
The only possible rationale for the block, I believe, was A I wrote "Why the fuck did you revert me" [15] (regarding a valid posting to AIV), and then when the user reverted that with no edit summary [16], B I undid it and thus effectively posted that question a second time [17].
A where I come from, asking "Why the fuck did you <do something>" is not uncivil. It's no different from "Why on Earth did you <do that>" - an expression of surprise. I believe that many prior discussions on the wiki have established that so-called 'obscene language' is not, in itself, uncivil. There is a massive difference between "Fuck you" and "What the fuck was that". Would BW have taken action if I'd just written "Why on Earth did you revert me", instead of using that naughty word? If so, that's bad judgement.
B Yes, I undid it once, and I shouldn't have. But it's hardly a massive edit-war, and I received absolutely no response other than a revert. After the 2nd revert, I did not post it again; I posted here, instead. I would have used ANI but that was semi'd at the time.
Please note, I received absolutely no warnings - just a template block message, giving the reason as "Disruptive editing" [18].
I asked BW to explain the block [19] but, he has not done so. His only response was, Edit warring on one user's talkpage, wholly inappropriate AIV postings, unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere ... all disruptive[20]. One single 'undo' is not an edit-war worthy of a block. My AIV posting was perfectly valid [21]. I have no idea what the alleged "unfounded and unproven accusations on ANI and elsewhere" refers to.
BW made a bad block, and I'd like to see acknowledgement of that, and a promise to be more careful in future. I'm not flogging a dead horse - there's a good reason for WP:ADMINACCT. It's likely that, if this isn't properly resolved, the next person he blocks won't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia to appeal as I have. Making new editors welcome is one of the most important things in the entire project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Bwilkins has a history of incivility (for which he used an alt acct for awhile) and a history of stonewalling IPs. I believe you should let this drop as no one responds well to being forced to apologize. However if this still bothers you enough in a few days then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Bwilkins. If you do so, I'll add a similar experience I had with him. Rgrds. --64.85.214.221 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as "A" goes, voice inflection makes a huge difference in "Why the FUCK did you do that" in an angry tone and "Why the fuck did you do that?" in a surprised tone or even a joking tone. Unfortunately, inflection isn't easily reproduced with text so you're better off erring on the safe side and just using "earth" instead. On another note, apologies are hard to come by on Wikipedia, don't hold your breath. You might just take 64.85.*'s advice.--v/r - TP 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A: Why did you revert me? Why on Earth did you revert me? Why the fuck did you revert me? - There is a difference in how civil these questions are. I don't think it was a 'great' block...but I don't think you should be arguing along this line. --Onorem♠Dil 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
What happened here was quite simple: You displayed behavior indicative of a problem user, and Bwilkins hastily banned you for it. Had Bwilkins properly investigated the situation before acting he would have realized a ban was inappropriate, but had you not displayed bad behavior the situation would never have come up. You were right to appeal the block, and it was rightly removed, but you are not owed an apology as you share responsibility for the misunderstanding. -- LWGtalk 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's not forget that what actually started this was an unwarranted and edit-summary-less reversion of a legitimate AIV report. Do you know who silently reverts AIV reports in my experience? Vandals naïvely trying to cover their tracks. And I am not saying that User:Seb_az86556 is a vandal; clearly not, but if you're going to chide people for 'behavior indicative of a problem user', please try to spread it around a little more evenly. This has been a cluster from beginning to end. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is now bordering on harassment of Bwilkins. If the editor continues to pursue this WP:AXE to grind here, s/he may be blocked. RFC/U is the option at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you insist on closing this discussion down, I suggest you move to mark WP:ADMINACCT as deprecated. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify that, before this is shuffled away;
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: [...] Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)
Bwilkins has still not explained the reason behind the block. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The last of those requests was just reverted [22] as "Rmv trolling". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
At what point does this become harassment? The block has been explained. The editor has been directed to all of the locations where the reasons for the block have been clearly stated. I'd block the harasser, but someone would probably say WP:INVOLVED (and they'd be right). This editor is either incompetent, a dick, a WP:TROLL, or simply someone who has it in for me. I hope it's the very latter, because I have thick enough skin to deal with them in that case, and it would also mean that we have some degree of HOPE that they'll become a productive editor someday. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, this "editor" has yet to even ADVISE me that they had reported me here to AN. Seems to fit the pattern - the "rules" don't apply to them - only the made-up ones of their apply to others (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not very nice to call someone "incompetent, a dick, a TROLL". If anyone can show me where the block has been explained, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'd like a straight answer to my straight questions, viz. "Why did you block me? Which specific diffs do you think are "disruptive editing" worthy of a block with no warnings?". 88.104.27.2 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thread has been opened for five days, the community has not come out in support of a topic ban. For long-term problems with specific users WP:RFC/U may be a better option. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would kindly ask administrators to look at the conversation on the talk page of Jan z Jani and article ban ColonelHenry (talk) from further editing on that page. Reason: We faced a dispute regarding correct spelling of the name but the discussion move on forward in good way, the subject is quite difficult and we wish to reach consensus i matter. However, in last post of ColonelHenry (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) the input is insulting me personally. ColonelHenry use words like polish Czy rozumiesz teraz, półgłówek? whitch can be translated to Do You now understand halfbrain or similar. Furtheremore, no statements of ColonelHenry have any given source or can verify or backup his statements. I fear that the way ColonelHenry act is destructive for further discussion in matter and also I feel it is not acceptable to insult anyone that contribute in this discussion. camdan (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess the pot calls the kettle black. This is ridiculous. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I welcome administrators or anyone to look at what have been posted. As You can see, I do not agree in most of what ColonelHenry is posting and I question academic value of his comments that I believe are of more personal character. The discussion can sometimes be hard and I also understand this but calling people by names is rude and not acceptable. I do not think that this board is for ColonelHenry or me to discuss this matter further since I asked administrators to overlook this question to come up with conclusions. Please respect that and let other persons come to their own conlusions. Thank you.camdan (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I have no view on whether ColonelHenry should be banned from editing the Jan z Jani article. I do note that shortly after receiving two warnings and the threat of a block for personal attacks on other editors [24][25], ColonelHenry referred to me here as "morally despicable", "blatant dishonesty" and continued by harassing me on my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
Xxanthippe, you trolled a GA review to rehash old grudges on material that had no place per policy in the article, and then lied about something that could be easily refuted. And my only comment, that you call "harrassment" was to point out that the grudge rhetoric wasn't constructive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"Lied" and "trolled" can be added to the list of insults. Spoken on an administrator's notice board, no less. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
The user doth protest too much, methinks. What is your interest here? What was your interest at the Thomas Traherne GA? (at which you offered nothing except rehashing old grudges...which I had forgotten and were not in the slightest bit relevant to the GA issues until you brought them back up. While "trolling" might be a loaded word, from an objective viewpoint your lingering around things regarding me and passive attempts to pick a fight and provoke when you do emerge from the shadow appears very furtively insidious. Did I really get under your skin so badly so long ago because I acted to improve an article in accordance with policy by relocating an inconsequential quotefarm to wikiquote and removed useless popular culture trivia section? Have you seriously been harbouring a grudge for 4 months and aching for any chance to feign victimhood? This is beyond ridiculous. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I don't know enough about the backstory here to offer an opinion about an article ban, but I think it was inappropriate for ColonelHenry to refer to camdan (or any other editor) as a "half-wit" (Google translation). An apology is in order. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 04:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, even if it was improper, neither party is blameless--although I doubt the other user, camdan, is willing to admit that or reciprocate...which makes his complaint rather disingenuous.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like we have a blame game going on. I think it is disconcerting that after calling someone a half wit and being told that does deserve an apology that you can't just offer it. If you can't just say "I'm sorry" than how can your words here even be trusted.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, frankly, I'm not inclined to apologise to someone who spent the previous three-days being disrespectful and condescending. What's worse is that apparently none of the comments take that user to task for their previous incivility, but just because I call him a "half-wit" for being obtuse, I'm automatically demonised. The best that's going to happen is I'll ignore him/her and the ridiculous hypocrisy of that user's complaining here when their previous statements were more abusive. I could care less, I commented on a requested move that ended up getting me notified when the matter was brought to WP:DRN, and there User:camdan has rather rudely said:
Your emotianal input have no sources and no value at all,
Your lack of knowledge in this subject is obviouse
Furtheremore, this subject is not about what You think since You do not have any academic degree in subject.
anyone that write on the subject should have academic education and those that do not have such education shuld actually reflect on what they are writing since it is just pure reflection of subjective mind and not scientific or academic.
That would be end of discussion! Please comment if You can provide any academic source on subject - Your translation of wiki rules are just trying to defend knowledge in subject that You do not have.
You certainly do not have any academic education at all in such subject, Your input is pure emotional (Note: I have two doctoral degrees, so his assumption was as baseless as it was wrong.).
You throw latin just to make people think that You have knowledge in subject that You do not have. You reference to french spelling is just embarrassing
Despite what User:camdan thinks, my statements on the matter at WP:RM, at WP:DRN, Talk:Jan z Jani were correct and backed by scholarship (For more information, see Wright, Roger. Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages. (London, New York: Routledge, 1991); and Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. (Liverpool: F. Cairns, 1982).
So, unless User:camdan is taken to task, any criticism of me lacks credibility. I really don't care if someone abuses me, I've never really had a thin-skin and I take a punch better than most. Until I said "half-wit" I was incredibly civil and willing to discuss the scholarship, despite being told by User:camdan I was essentially an uneducated idiot. And in the interest of the "pot calls the kettle black" school of thought:
I fear that the way ColonelHenry act is destructive for further discussion in matter and also I feel it is not acceptable to insult anyone that contribute in this discussion
You do seem to be a rather intelligent person to me. I am sure you can figure out why the above is not on the same level as name calling. Look, I doubt anyone is going to be topic banned here, but furthering the conflict in the manner you did was not appropriate. If someone makes accusations that just not accurate about your education that is pretty bad, but it is because we don't know each other here and sure, the other editor should not be discussing you in this manner. It was an act of escalation on their part. But you jumped right in and began making it worse by not just cooling down and making your case. I think this is a matter for both parties to simply back off from each other for the time being. Pretty simple...if you both can do it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I must be the uneducated idiot that User:camdan thinks I am because I seem to miss the distinction between someone being called a half-wit or being repeatedly belittled as "you must not be educated" (a less forward way of saying "you're a half-wit") and "you're not worthy of participating in this discussion" (i.e. again, effectively saying "you're a half-wit, go away"). Your assessment advocating a distinction strikes me as "splitting hairs". Lastly, I made my case...but apparently it wasn't deemed worthy or valueable for User:camdan to discuss on its merits because all I was told in response was several iterations of "you're an idiot, go away" in slightly more polite terms. But then again, *that* (for some Kafkaesque reason) isn't "name-calling."--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz. If you ask ColonelHenry to apologize to camdan for calling him a "half-wit", which I think you are justified in doing, would you like to ask him to apologize to me for accusing me of being "morally despicable", "blatant dishonesty", "lied" and "trolled" (see above in this thread where the latter two insults are issued). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
First of all, this seems like a better fit for WP:ANI. Second, though I'm only tangentially related to the issue at hand (I performed a NAC on an RM at Jan z Jani), a quick look over the dispute suggests an interaction ban may be more constructive. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think any talk of any sort of ban is ridiculous at this point...User:camdan has acknowledged that I was correct and dropped his objection at my talk page, and at Talk:Jan z Jani. This, for all intents and purposes, is a moot issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
There is difference between influence on language and what is written in medieval sources - there are totally different things - if I talk about vitamines in tomatoes, why taling about onion and olive oil? So...I never questioned CH's education or knowledge about language and influence or his other knowledge but here he simply did not spend years in archives reading original sources - which is not the same as reading publications (contain errors). Therefore, writing about 19th century influence have nothing to do with this case and was destructive. In this link You find the work of Parpocki, although it have none academic value, it is still written in 16th century. Look at page 66 (64 in book version - what does it tell? And it does not matter whatever influence there is on language, it is simply matter of how names where spelled in Poland in medieval times - what is in original sources - and from that question if it would be better to spell names in medieval latin or polish on en:wiki - influence or not. The outcome was no, so case is closed and I have no problems with that. Still, I wish to discuss further matter of spelling in other way and maybe reach consensus and therefore, I wrote on this board, becaue if we are going to continue in same way, we just waste time - and we will face 100 more discussion like that in the future. So yes, I don't have any objections about the note in art Jan z Jani that CH wrote regarding influence on language and why should I, I never questioned that part, I questioned something else. camdan (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please show a DIFF that requires admin action? Thanks. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:RFPP is heavily backlogged with 29 open requests, some more than 2 days old. Admins needed. Get Set, Ready, Mop. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if an admin could review the relevant templates and remove the spurious | character that got inserted by mistake. This fix should resolve a long standing issue with certain license templates.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm the one who answered the {{edit protected}} requests, and I really should have spotted the syntax error, so I'm feeling quite embarrassed now... I've fixed all the affected templates. However, if the request at Template talk:License migration complete is anything to go by, the templates will need to be changed yet again - which is enough to put me off touching them for now. If somebody else wants to fix them in the meantime, be my guest. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Issue resolved. TBrandley 06:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! Can you help me with the article These Days, I Have Nothing? I copied and pasted here infobox (Single), but it doesn't work=) Maybe there are any problems with template? With respect --Stellsman (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Those things are sensitive, you left off a closing bracket in one of the links that broke it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you very much))) --93.72.76.168 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to let people know that there's an informal RfC at User:Jmh649/Will Beback to discuss whether Will should be allowed back to edit. SlimVirgin(talk) 18:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Umm, wasn't this just announced here? I can't find it on this page or in the archives, so I'm questioning the page history, not your helpful notice. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe Doc James posted it to AN/I, so maybe that's what you're thinking of, Nyttend. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Right you are; sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Categorisation suppression on Free images of non-free subjects[edit]
Moved to WP:VP/T, section "Categorisation suppression on Free images of non-free subjects ". Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No further admin action seems warranted at this time, but if it is needed WP:SPI is thataway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had no intention of creating a new user name nor editing from anything other than as an IP however since my work and home both user proxy servers and the IP's are dynamic and change frequently, the result appears as though I am socking. Since I am an outspoken critic of several areas in the community this gave my accusers an avenue for attack. So now I have created this username, which I intend to use solely for the purposes of editing here. This will eliminate the variable IP mess and will eliminate the arguments from some of my accusers who like to delete my comments because they don't agree. I notified a couple members of the Arbcom (I would have notified more but the Email spammer triggered) that I would notify the community of this new account so I could not be accused of socking and that I would create an account that would be easily identified as me to prevent any "confusion". I got no response after a couple days so I created it. Silence is consent. This is about as clear as it can get. I am trying to be honest and forthcoming here so if there are any questions let me know. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, your account is both globally locked and locally indeffed. You're actively evading your (b)lock by editing here, no matter whether you do it under an IP or an account. The option of a clean start is not available to you. You know the rules well enough to know that none of what you're doing here is ok. If you want the right to edit Wikipedia, you will need to resolve the issues that have your account (b)locked; until then you're continuing to flagrantly violate policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am globally blocked because that is what I wanted and persisted to get that. I was refused multiple times and had to post my password to get the global block. As for here, I am blocked here due to socking or the perception of socking. Mostly because of the variable IP's. I really wouldn't care about having the account and would be fine editing from an IP however since that is perceived as Socking because my IP's constantly change, this is necessary to "resolve" that as you put it. I also agree that a clean start isn't possible, for me or anyone else. In order for a clean start one needs to identify I was X now I am Y or else they will be charged with socking. I created another username in an attempt to clean start which was ThePhoenixReborn. That was when I knew for certain that a clean start wouldn't work for me and was affirmed that it was a garbage policy that probably should be deleted. I have edited all over, to a wide array of topics. My knowledge of the system and the rules is immediately recognized after a few edits. Its not like I edited some obscure topic like extinct flowers, I was all over, in every namespace across tens of thousands of pages, in multiple wiki's. Any other concerns you want me to address? KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
As the admin who indeffed Kumioko, I just want to go on the record saying that I'm fine with him returning with a new account if he's willing to edit solely with that account and not edit logged out. As I said after blocking, if he was willing to stop editing as an IP I would lift the block I'd placed, and as far as I'm concerned that is still the case. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This request for administrative action has been reviewed and action taken. This is neither a forum for general discussion of a banned user nor a place to propose new policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The site-banned user Captain Occam (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki) is militating on wikipediocracy for anonymous accounts and established editors to make disruptive edits on wikipedia on his behalf. The IP above has twice removed an arbcom notice placed on the User:Captain Occam by an arbcom clerk when implementing Captain Occam's indefinite site-ban. It was previously removed by another IP. From what he has posted on wikipediocracy, Captain Occam intends to disrupt wikipedia. Amongst other things, he has intimated that he would like to help mount an arbcom case concerning MastCell(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA). In those circumstances, there is no reason for him or others to have access to either his user talk page or uner talk page.
I've fully protected the user page, reblocked Occam without TP access, and hatted the entire page. Hopefully that will be sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ain't seeing any registered user edits that would justify full protection instead of semi. NE Ent 01:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The intent is to just stop all drama and tag warring in its tracks, which is what, so far, is happening. Let's just leave it at that please. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Mathsci policing those with whom he has editorially disagreed needlessly adds to the drama. Others can protect WP just as well. Just saying. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
"Needlessly"? Seems pretty needed to me - and Mathsci has a better handle on these people than anyone else around, so that's a prety clueless remark. Just sayin' Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to Beeblebrox.
In reply to Vecrumba. I have no "editorial disagreement" or "ideological differences" with Captain Occam. He is a site-banned user, who was banned for being disruptive. That disruption partly involves proxy-editing and sockpuppetry. It continued during the whole of 2012 through repeated misuse of arbcom processes. Off-wiki he has been nurtured and encouraged by a small coterie of wikipediocracy moderators. One consequence on wikipedia has been the resubmission of evidence previously rejected on several occasions by arbcom. The problem has nothing to do with the editing of articles. Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh man, that case had input from the late and much lamented Steven Rubenstein. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? Thanks. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. A user just left a note on my talk page alerting me to what seems to be a copy & paste move (see here). From what I can see, the page User:Lubnarizvi/sandbox was copy/pasted to Amina Inloes, and then both articles continued to develop independently. As far as I can tell, the two articles are now exactly the same. I'm not very experienced in this area; I think a history merge is necessary (but I don't know). Help from an admin experience in this area would be appreciated. Thanks. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 19:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
How about help from an admin who has been meaning to go ahead and learn this for a long time? I think I got it, but a double-check would not be a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Looking over this I'm not sure a histmerge should have been done, looks to me like there were parallel histories. I think it might have to be undone, but before doing anything I'll ping Graham87 – he's the expert in this area. Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably not ... at least the sandbox revisions that were made *after* the page was moved to the main namespace shouldn't have been history merged (see this edit). But considering the difference between the last version that was in the main namespace before the history merge and the current version, along with this edit summary, there probably isn't any point in undoing the history merge. It just seems like the article was prematurely copy and pasted in to the main namespace before the subsequent sandbox edits, and Beeblebrox's history merge just had the effect of moving the latest version of the article to the main namespace, as [[the original author wanted. I'll notify them of this discussion. Hope this makes sense to somebody. :-) Graham87 07:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, so because the diff between the current revision and what was the current mainspace revision before the histmerge looks alright, it doesn't matter that a bit of the intermediate history looks a bit funky? Also, should the diffs that were from the sandbox but had nothing to do with the Amina Inloes article be retained in mainspace, or should they deleted/moved back to userspace? Jenks24 (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Oops, I didn't notice (or TBH even check properly) that the very earliest revisions in the history were irrelevant to the Amina Inloes article; I've moved them back to userspace. Graham87 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Which is the "original version" of WP: Spelling in this case?[edit]
An RfC at WP: Spelling has not yet produced a consensus after being up for quite a while. One of the two parties involved in the original dispute says that the original version of the text must now be restored. The other party does not contest this, but there is some question as to which version counts as the original. The first party claims that the original version is the one that contains all of that party's own changes and none of the other party's (this version is currently displayed) [26]. The second party believes that the version of the page from immediately before the two of them began making changes should be considered the original [27].
Which is version should be considered "original" in this case? Is returning to the original what should be done after an RfC?
The original dispute is about whether "theater" and "theatre" mean different things in American English. The text in question is under "Different spellings, different meanings." 17:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs)
Neither. The last stable version is where you revert to. This will generally mean, as the second part said, the version from immediately before the two of them began making changes. Not always, but generally that's the case.--v/r - TP 17:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The two of us started making changes right after the other. The first party mentioned above did one version on roughly March 7 and the second party did another on roughly March 7 and 8, so neither one was in place very long. Much obliged if an admin would restore the page to last stable status. The page history can be found here and it's all visible on one screen (though the same cannot be said of the talk page discussion). The current dispute is between users Darkfrog24 and Amadscientist.
Other parties have made other changes to other parts of the page during this time. The text in question is the prose description of "theater/theatre" under Different spellings, different meanings. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a mess to me. I say pick a version, any version. On a side note... any particular reason you're referring to yourself in the 3rd person? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
In the interest of neutrality, as in an RfC request. I didn't want to bias the first respondent. And no, I don't want a sysop to change it from one wrong version to another. I want an admin to change it from one wrong version to a correct version, preferably without deleting changes made to this page that have nothing to do with the dispute. As for "pick a version, any version," I've got some suggestions here but feel free to add more. If you ask me, just telling the readers what the sources actually said would sidestep a lot of these problems. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yet another logic failure in my attempts to code a template... Can an admin revert the change made as a result of an edit protected request, and start a review of my suggested template modifcations back to January. I am having a distinct lack
of confidence in my ability at the moment.
I'd also appreciate it if there was a general disscussion on how to ensure this DOESN'T happen again. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Reverted. I don't understand the issue, so I can't participate in said discussion. Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, this was another mistake I made on Monday. The logic in the protected edit request was backwards, and I should have picked up on that when reviewing it. The revert improved the situation somewhat, but still wasn't entirely correct, so I have fixed it. With any luck, this time things should be working properly. I've also reduced the protection to semi, as there were only 500 transclusions. As to how to ensure this doesn't happen again, the answer is for me to actually check protected edit requests properly in the sandbox and test cases page before I make the edits. If anyone catches me being slapdash about this again, please apply trouts liberally to my talk page. (And by the way, it would have been nice to be informed about this thread.) — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 10:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
My apoloigies,I should have let you know about this Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Old-timers and OTRS agents may remember Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who threatened the WMF with action over his Wikipedia biography. He was today convicted of nine counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception, eight counts of fraud, three counts of acquiring criminal property, two counts of using a false instrument, one count of attempting to obtain a money transfer by deception, one count of obtaining property by deception and one count of using criminal property, related to his fake claims to be a lawyer. I must confess to some small personal satisfaction in adding that fact, sourced to three separate news organisations, to his biography. A great case of WP:DEADLINE: having bent over backwards to be fair to him, as we should, and having been attacked even so, we can now document the fact, adjudicated by a court, that he is a fake. No statement from him in reaction as yet but I expect an appeal. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Changed your link; it went to a disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, thank you. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that the early revisions have all been revdel'd, but there is no entry in the deletion log. Can they be restored? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I was going to suggest contacting the admin who did the deletions but, yeah, I can't figure out who that was either. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that restoring any revisions be done with caution. I don't know the history here or what might have been deleted, but if there were unsourced allegations, they should not be restored - just because someone has been convicted of a crime now does not mean that our normal policies about living persons no longer apply. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with this. I don't see how we have a desperate need for these lost revisions; if stuff needs to be "restored" it can be added anew from the original sources. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The pair of deleted revisions from last September have been oversighted; you'd need an oversighter to restore them. It's hard to find them in the deletion log because the page has been moved multiple times and the logs don't move when the page does; if you check the logs for Giovanni di Stefano, you'll find that Coren removed a ton of revisions on 3 July 2009, citing "Attribution fix (avoid BLP)". The original version of the article had a bunch of information on him getting convicted of some things in the past, and the first publicly visible edit was one that removed a bunch of conviction-related things that appeared to be decently sourced, such as the (now dead-linked) http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071030/3/287t.html. At least the most recent of the deleted revisions appears fine (barring threats from the subject, I see no reason for it to have been removed), so I think it would be good to ask Coren for an undeletion. Note that there are also 472 deleted revisions in the history of Giovanni di Stefano; some are fragments of pagemoves, but others have content that might be worthy of undeletion; I've not looked at them, so I can't say. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't realized it had been moved more than once, that would explain it. I did check the OS log, obviously I can't go into specifics but those edits will indeed need to remain suppressed. I also agree that caution should be used and the revdeleted material should not just be put back wholesale. I'd ask Coren first, but basically any admin who wants to can review them one at a time and restore them if it seems warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I would just undelete the lot, frankly. I don't know what's in those diffs but from the contents of the talk page archives, it seems clear that Di Stefano was objecting to reliably sourced info about his criminal record. Of course, today's verdict makes it clear that his objections were just as fraudulent as anything else he got up to. Prioryman (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
To note: The Devil's Advocate (talk·contribs) appears to be trying to whitewash the article by removing mention of Di Stefano being a convicted fraudster and retitling it as referring to him as a "legal counsellor", which he never claimed to be. He also appears to be move warring. This is evidently in response to agitation on Wikipediocracy. Prioryman (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who looks at the sources and article will see that his claim to notability arises from him offering legal services to notorious people. That fraud is also often brought up in this context does not mean it is appropriate to define him as a fraudster and act like that is why people should know more about him. If you have a better term than suggest one, but labeling someone a fraudster at the top of their bio should only be done if being engaged in fraud is why the person is notable. Seems Stefano is notable primarily for his activities as legal counsel so anything that is faithful to that would be better, and he has simply faced fraud counts for presenting himself as having the necessary qualifications to serve that role.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 01:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Please keep the content dispute on the article talk page, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If my memory serves, the early revisions mixed some (now proven) fact with some editorialising. We now have better sources, there's not much to be gained by restoring the early revisions, particularly as it would require a very careful rev by rev analysis to ensure that the material is accurate and well supported, and other material is not slipstreamed. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
NOTE ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL: Jimbo Wales personally deleted the page and rebooted the article. Like Beeblebrox, I would advise caution. I saw some of the old versions in mirrors of wikipedia, and some of the information was plain wrong. It also had some very strong claims that only had paper-thin sourcing from unreliable websites. As far as I know, all the salvageable content has already been salvaged, improved, and sourced adequately. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
see thread below at "RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti" Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fladrif has proposed a site ban and topic bans at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti#Motion_to_close, which is not the usual page for such proposals, but perhaps it would be best not to move the discussion. This RFC/U has been going on since November; my closure was reverted. I think the disputants are going to require firm assistance in getting this elderly RFC/U shut down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It's absolutely the wrong venue to discuss a "community" topic ban. It's not a community ban by any sorts. It's a ban by editors with beef and a couple uninvolved passersby. It just simply doesn't get the audience required to enact such a proposal. That's why Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance says "What RfC/U CANNOT do is: Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." The proposal will have to move here or it's invalid. Your close was reverted because you didn't follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing but other than that there is no real reason you couldn't close it. Just keep in mind that the ban proposal can't be done on an RFC/U.--v/r - TP 12:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
TParis more or less has it - it would be fine to close that RfC as "proposals will be made on AN" or if you don't want to haul the entire discussion history here, you could probably just close it and then do an AN proposal asking the community to ratify "the suggestions in the motion to close on the RfC." But involuntary sanctions do need to be ratified here in some form, and an archiving of the RfC with no result or close text, which (seems to be?) what WhatamIdoing attempted is downright odd. WhatamIdoing, if you want to close it that's fine but you'll need to close it with some content in the close, based on the consensus (or lack thereof, I've only skimmed it) of the RfC. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
And while you're here, Whatamidoing, I'm going to go ahead and throw you under the bus: When will we be able to support you at RfA?--v/r - TP 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the close was reverted because the disputants couldn't bring themselves to believe that RFC/Users/Closing really does say that RFC/Us should be closed after about a month or so if no progress is being made, despite no agreement having been reached, not because of any failure to follow the four steps on my part. They are simple enough steps: paste two templates, delete one line, and update a table. Closing statements are not provided in these instances. Whoever updates the table this time will see that the page has been listed as closed there for a long while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like there is pretty clear consensus that the RFC needs to be closed, and that the formal ban needs to take place here, not there. So we'll need an uninvolved person to close (I participated.) and then assumeably someone will restart a more formal ban discussion here. Sergecross73msg me 15:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep. An uninvolved admin will have to summarize the RFC to see if a block is necessary and we can reference the additional evidence subpage if we have a ban discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Let it run til tomorrow. Then go ahead and close it. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are you saying that kangaroos need to be tied down? --Jayron32 01:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest WP:oversight of these edits unless confirmed by reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC).
You are requesting oversight in the wrong place, Xxanthippe. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
and I suggest that the page needs to be fully protected until the situation is resolved. I make my comment here because that is where the thread started. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC).
Agreed: I've just fully protected the article for 72 hours. Any admin may lift this protection (and drop the article back to semi protection) without consulting me if something is reported either way in reliable sources - as yet, there's nothing in reliable sources about this. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It's almost certainly true, but since everybody questioned by police these days gets arrested, it is also of very limited value. We should wait until a statement is made by the police. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
As "personal attacks" go, that was exceptionally mild. I'm not saying reverting you was right or that there was anything wrong with your edit, but I really don't see a personal attack here.Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
When you're telling someone else that he's confused (in a hostile manner) and that he's only trying to defend a wrong, you're breaking the bounds of civility. Not so bad that it's by itself sanctionable, but it's still not appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Even hostile might be a bit much. I have no idea who's right or wrong with the content, but accusing someone of being misguided or misquoting them is hardly a personal attack... It could be wrong, but not an attack. Sergecross73msg me 15:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding SchuminWeb, and previously suspended by motion, has now closed. The original temporary injuction has been enacted:
[...] Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months [...] the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 05:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So in other words, SchuminWeb has been desysopped. All right, then. Kurtis(talk) 13:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a case of the user would rather just quite editing and take the desysop than waste a bunch of time in discussions in an Arbcom case and then be desysopped. This is precisely the type of situation that I have been talking about for months. Once an Arbcom case is accepted, the end result is that individual is desysopped, blocked or both. The Arb's wouldn't even take the case unless they thought it had merits so once its been excepted the end result is pretty clear and consistant, so why even bother arguing it? Is this really the message we want to send to the users of the site about Arbcom? I think not. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not an inevitable result. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you give me an example in the last couple years of an Arbcom case where the accused was not blocked, desysopped or both? The only one I can think of is the Doncram case recently which very nearly resulted in the desysopping of SarekofVulcan. That is the lone exception I know of. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I added the "discuss this" link that (I think) Hahc21 forgot. Traditionally people have argued endlessly and fruitlessly about ArbCom decisions at WT:AC/N, not here. This board is more for arguing endlessly and fruitlessly about other stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the link, Floquem. It was 2 a.m. and I was a bit sleepy :) — ΛΧΣ21 16:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Round Two of the Requests for Comment (RfC) on the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process was a success by any measure, and has now been closed. The final round is a one-week vote on two proposals that got support, but relatively few votes, so we're advertising widely and hoping for broader participation in Round Three. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Which ones do you see as a "success"; I only see 3, but you said there were 4 at /3. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
CC's already been dealt with. There's nothing here to see, folks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does Colton Cosmic have a documented pattern of trying to hack into other people's accounts, whether Wikipedia or otherwise? Logging into my Gmail account just now, I found a message from the system: "Someone recently tried to use an application to sign in to your Google Account. Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:22:32 PM UTC IP Address: 97.72.232.122 Location: Hialeah, FL, USA". I've changed my passwords, of course, and I can't find evidence of damage, but I'm concerned because this IP has a block log and userpage (and at least one contribution) indicating that it's Colton Cosmic, and we definitely don't want longtime sockpuppetteers trying to hack our accounts. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Such a lame attempt at hacking would fit his general pattern of clueless behavior, he is basically his own worst enemy. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick followup. Without going into the who-and-how of this, the IP mentioned above is shared by a number of editors whom I will not mention due to privacy rules. Given the nature of this IP, and some other technical evidence, I sincerely doubt that Colton Cosmic is involved in this incident - Alison❤ 06:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added a note to the IP's block log to that effect. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC proposal for community sanctions against Niemti[edit]
There is no community consensus to indefinitely ban Niemti, though it is evident that community patience has worn exceedingly thin and Niemti is admonished by the closing administrator to be aware of thin ice. There is no community consensus to topic ban Niemti from Video Games. There is community consensus that Niemti is now topic banned from GA. The proposal for a Civility Parole fails. I need to consult with other editors on interpreting the Interaction Ban results; however, both parties apparently having voluntarily agreed to something along those lines is an exceptionally good idea under the circumstances and should be encouraged. I will enact the topic ban for GA. Further discussion regarding the Interaction Ban in the results section below, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"the RfC concludes that Niemti has regularly and over a long period of time engaged in misconduct such as incivility and personal attacks, article ownership, not using edit summaries, and disruption of the "good articles" process. Niemti has not indicated any readiness to change their conduct. There is consensus, in #Motion to close, that a proposal to site-ban and to topic-ban Niemti should be submitted to the community."
Accordingly, I refer the following proposal, as discussed in the RfC (with some copyediting to reflect current sanctions terminology) to the community.
Please indicate which parts of this proposal you support or oppose. My understanding is that the parts of the proposal are not mutually exclusive. Because this referral is part of the RfC closure, I myself am neutral. Sandstein 12:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: Niemti is currently blocked. Their statement, if any, is transcluded from their talk page below.
Oh hi. Long story short so I won't be "ranting" (or what not) this time:
So Sjones is wikihounding me constantly for nearly a year now, and his pal Bridies is also obsessed with me to the point of where the great most of his entire activity here on Wikipedia in the 5 months was all about how to rid of me (while I've substantionally adited hundreds of different articles during the same period, over 5,000 in total since March 2012). (Bridies - I don't even know/remember what he was really writing, maybe he wasn't as bad as Sjones, I don't know. He didn't comment here, so it's irrevelant-ish anyway.) That's just not normal. Btw, right now I'm blocked because I referred to this wikihounding by "stalking" (which is just semantics really, apparently they call it "cyberbullying" now outside the Wikipedia).
Now, GAs. Basically what The Devil's Advocate wrote in his comment - and this example of the so-called "additional evidence" (as it was called by Sjones in his wikihounding thread) is indeed a good example of "evidence", as it shows what is actually this "problem" with me - and it's that I actually know (and obey) all the policies, rules and guidelines (including but not limited to everything regarding GAs and their reviewing process), while many reviewers don't know, and even when they're informed about the rules and guidelines (the proper ones, because in this case the reviewer was misinformed by some other apparently uninformed users, strangely including at least 1 admin) they might even flatly and completely refuse to acknowledge and follow them (here, the reviewer's invoking "ignore all rules" instead of admitting the wrong). I'm all for proper reviewing, instead of incorrect/arbitrary, which is why I've opened this thread recently (aftter this very debacle, precisely) because the scale of this problem (various types of bad reviewing) is pretty alarming, and some reviewers' blatant refusal to play by rules after they're being informed about them is just absolutely unacceptable (that's my opinion, at least, but I can't see how could I be any wrong with being right).
After skipping through through the thread, some comments on comments:
Wizardman - it's the same person who wrote "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid ... I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria."[28] Well, I'm still convinced he doesn't understand GA criteria (and yes, shouldn't be reviewing, if he does). See the link for evidence ("additional", even).
Sergecross73 - it was this admin who gave the misleading (wrong) advice to the original reviewer from the very same thread.[29]
Cúchullain and your "I honestly couldn't believe that things like Ayane (Dead or Alive), Ibuki (Street Fighter), or Ada Wong were GAs" made me actually smile a bit. To quote someone, "I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria." Also, your statement of "I've only interacted with Niemti at Anita Sarkeesian" was false as I'm pretty sure you couldn't miss my 94 edits (over the course of 3 months) at Morgan Le Fay (where we both are very top contributors and I did a complete and thorough cleanup, from this sorry state), just for one example. I don't know why are you giving false stataments like that, but that's you.
You commentary on me is very misleading. Someone asked about a group of sources, and all I said was that in general its best to avoid Facebook and Youtube as sources due to frequently having WP:SPS or copyright issues. Note the word usually, -- I wasn't talking about the specific sources. Beyond that, you're just misdirecting the discussions again; even if my comment was hypothetically wrong in every possible interpretation, it still has nothing to do with this AN conversation. I wasn't GA reviewing your work, nor do I GA review anybodies work. Your point is completely unrelated to this discussion. Sergecross73msg me 14:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's you anwswer that was "very misleading", as you've linked to policies/guidelines (namely: WP:YOUTUBE, WP:SPS, WP:LINKVIO) that absolutely didn't support your statement at all - I've already addressed it at in detail here (and the ultimate cop-out answer by the reviewer was that he's going to "ignore all rules" and not admit being wrong). And how is this random example (not even picked by me, because I didn't read it) from Sjones' so obsessively collected "additional evidence" being "completely unrelated" now? --Niemti (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
But like I said, even if I'm complete wrong, you're cherrypicking; if you look at the big picture, only 2 of the 10 sources in question were related to FB or YT, where as clearly here and here, show that multiple other users found multiple problems with multiple other sources, and your GA noms were rejected on those grounds. The reviewer literally says that in the discussion. Sergecross73msg me 15:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as your statements on IAR and Sjones comments, I'm not doing a point by point response on every bullet point you made above. I'm just talking about the excerpt you included about me. Sergecross73msg me 15:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not any "cherrypicking" - people who don't know policies/rules/criteria/etc, and even just refuse to follow them (not by ignorance but by deliberate choice), want to ban me for actually knowing all that following/applying it. And that's including you. Also, as I've wrote right there 1. all of them were either actually totally correct or easily replacable 2. it's not a quick fail criteria. Which was answered by "ignore all rules", then Wizardman (who als wants to ban me) comes and tell me: "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid ... I'm now convinced you do not understand GA criteria" (which is just super ironic at this point). So, anyway, why would you give such a misleading advice like that? Seriously - I never do things like that, so why did you do it? --Niemti (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
See, here's where you're confusing issues. I think you deserve a ban because how you treat people so poorly, and refuse to acknowledge it, or try to change at all. You've always got a finger to point at someone else, that they treated you bad first or did something outrageous or something, and there's always another person who you're starting trouble with because of your incivility or OWN issues. You're entirely unwilling or unable to even see the problem, and as an Admin, I can't justify looking the other way when people come to me for help, because you're making no effort to follow these rules.
The GA nom stuff? I support you being topic banned from that for a different reason. Everyone's always complaining your noms don't meet criteria. I don't have much of a problem with that, as I don't care personally about how many you've stuffed rightfully or wrongfully in the queue. I don't do much of that, so it doesn't affect me. But it's always distracting other people from being constructive. That's why I feel you should be topic banned from that; rather than everyone always wasting time debating, I feel like you need a filter, someone else you can consult on whether it meets the criteria, and then they can nominate it for you or something. If someone nominated GA's for you, perhaps there'd be less wasted time debating the merits of the nom. Sergecross73msg me 15:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I've just got a finger to point back at people who point a finger at me. And to prove that I'm not at "fault" for being right. But they're at fault for being wrong (and they are, which I proved already and can prove anytime, it's just so easy) - and oh yes, that's they who shouldn't be doing things like such hack-job 'reviews' by following their own arbitrary pseudo-criteria (despite specifically being not allowed to do anything like that) and even pulling "ignore all rules" after being informed/reminded about the real GA process. Or giving incorrect advice to people, for that matter (don't do this). And oh yes, I also just realized it's not a side issue at all. Because it was precisely this wrong advice of yours, pounced on up by the always-vigilant Sjones and uncritically accepted by the reviewer (and then by Wizardman) that inflamed the whole situation and led straight to this situation we're having now. I wonder if you can accept responsibility for that. --Niemti (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
But you've encouraged him (and Wizardman too - "The reviewers concerns are entirely valid. How can you possibly think Facebook and YouTube are acceptable sources that you can just toss around?" - now he want to ban me for that). Were there actually any "sourcing shortcomings" is debatable (and it was not discussed with me, at all - he actually came to ask you, not me!), that it had nothing at all to do with abrupt quickfailing is not (as it was an absurdly blatant quickfail abuse, "supported" by "ignore all rules" for the lack of any real arguments). --Niemti (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk to them about it, not me. It's simple: Someone posed a question about sources on the VG source noticeboard, and I gave vague advice supported by policy and my experience here at Wikipedia: I feel many people cannot identify copyright violations or self-published sources from Youtube or Facebook, and since I feel so many are unable to do this, I advise them to use other sources, because it's almost always available elsewhere if it is indeed legit information. Its a "play it safe" strategy. That's all I did. I did not comment on your particular sources. I did not review your GA nom. I did not quickfail it, nor did I even read that review or until today. I had no role in any of that minus a vague piece of advice. If you have a problem with what happened, complain to them. Like I already said, I have no desire to defend everyone you complained about in your comments, merely clear my name in it. Sergecross73msg me 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
To sum it up: You refuse to accept responsibility for you wrong advice that confused the reviewer (briefly, in the end he just didn't care and "ignored all rules", by his own admission) and then also Wizardman, and also picked up by Sjones, which led me to being reminded of him (and to my current block for using the term "stalker" instead of saying "wikihounder" like a proper Wikipedia gentleman). Now the still confused (despite being explained, but believed you more) Wizardman wants to ban me, and you want to ban me too. Bravo, well played. --Niemti (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that WP:EL basically says what Sergecross says, that's not "wrong advice" (and the reasoning above is exactly why editors are cautioned against YT/FB links due to the inability to judge the proper copyright owner). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"EL" stands for "external links", it was references, apples and oranges (but anyway YouTube and Facebook actually have even their own templates for adding them to external links). --Niemti (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, the advice isn't wrong, and they're people, not machines; they have the ability to think for themselves and make their own decisions. I didn't make anyone do anything. So, taking that into consideration, yeah, I guess I do refuse to accept responsibility. And even if I hypothetically did, its such a tiny tiny part of the problem. How many noms have you done? 10? 20? 100? And you're hung up on one tiny vague bit of advice that may have influenced one single nom? Its such an insigificant part of this massive problem. Enough of this; this is you just misdirecting the discussion again, moving people away from the real issues. Sergecross73msg me 16:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you must have a very peculiar definition of a good advice, especially since one of these 3 links that you "just tossed around" (to paraphrase the esteemed GA expert Wizardman) didn't even mention neither YT not FB at all (precisely, your Wikipedia:LINKVIO, or even the entire Wikipedia:Copyrights where it actually links to for that matter) and another (WP:YOUTUBE) wasn't even about sources/references, also at all, and you failed to properly explain anything. And you still don't understand how this AN thread here is an extension of this very GAN (Wizardman and his "How can you possibly think Facebook and YouTube are acceptable sources that you can just toss around?", Sjones stirring things up again - and being called, oh-no, a "stalker", it's all directly connected)? But come on, ban me and carry on superbly advising people. EOT because everything about that was said already. --Niemti (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
In response to your comment, in fact I hadn't noticed your work at Morgan le Fay, which I haven't done much work on in several years, and we certainly haven't interacted there. At any rate it's just misdirection; as far as I remember, other than the Anita Sarkeesian debacle I've never dealt with you at any of the articles or forums that concern us here. However, the briefest of looks into your other contributions shows that you've displayed the same serious issues that got you banned from that topic in many other areas. Your intransigence in forcing through your low standards and personal interpretations of the Good Article procedures, rather than collaborating with others to create actual, well, good articles, is one of those problems.--Cúchullaint/c 21:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not displaying any "intransigence" in "forcing through" my "low standards" (these standards are neither "low" nor "mine", because they're standard and I never took any part in setting them) and what I'm doing is actually strongly opposing any and all "personal interpretations" (like here: [30]). Now go and read: Wikipedia:Good article criteria (recently changed substantionally on March 17, so read also the previous version), Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (recently changed substantionally on March 19, ditto) and possibly also Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, and then you'll know too. --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There is some truth to what Niemti says above as there are a few reviewers that set higher standards than the minimum. These generally involve superficial things like reference formatting, irrelevant MOS guidelines and so forth (usually they are quite easy to fix - although they can be time consuming). However most of the criteria are quite subjective and purposely so (prose, broadness, neutrality etc). Nominators should not be nominating them unless they think the article already meets these criteria so it ideally just comes down to the reviewer agreeing or pointing out areas where further work is needed. Many also point at things not in the criteria, but they should be left optional. The best reviews have a back and forth between nominator and reviewer to get the article to a standard both are happy meets the criteria. That is the part that is lacking with you or at the least is ineffectual. At the end of the day having the green spot is not that big a deal, if you are not willing or wanting to listen to feedback then it is probably best to just not nominate the article in the first place. For what its worth, my only confrontation with Niemti was the opposite to what he is accused of here, where they were insisting on a standard for Good articles that I did not think was warranted. AIRcorn(talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed Niemti's GA's they were of all great detail and did answer some of my more petty and nitpicky issues, all in the sake of preserving and keeping high quality sources and ensuring that no 404 or iffy sites would slip in for someone to challenge the material. Niemti actually overhauled the page and brought it up substantially when I noted a few issues, but I am not sure if they were planned post-nom and prior to my review. I do not like to annoy or challenge other people or make them insecure about things, I used to be more stubborn like Niemti about 'correctness' of an article. The care and thought Niemti puts into Wikipedia should not be discounted because of a defense of that quality. Niemti may not want to backdown or compromise on an issue that is essentially a 'this or that' and when compromise isn't a viable option. Sometimes you can't have it both ways. Stubborn editors or persistent negative editors can and do easily push an otherwise good editor to their limit. It happens. Let's not lose a good editor over minor stuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, Mortal Kombat II where I did 505 edits (including around about 50 more with additional tweaks after it passed GA), also spin-off Home versions of Mortal Kombat II (after first working on this aspect a lot too, but it was still too big and simply a chore), also the main Mortal Kombat article with 192 edits. (I was actually also working on both of them for a long time on-and-off since 2005 or so but I'm not even counting that.) --Niemti (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of things "quite subjective", the current (new) "a long way" thing (that I was speaking above already) is waaaay too vague it's just a total carte blanche for QF abuse and so it neededs to be changed. --Niemti (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support 1, 2, and 3, obviously. Even though he has done some excellent work on articles, he has still engaged in misconduct such as incivility and personal attacks, article ownership, not using edit summaries, and disruption of the "good articles" process for over 6 years. While I tried to give him a fair chance, the fact must remain, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and civility is a cornerstone in this project. Niemti has a poor track record when it comes to collaborating with anyone that he disagrees with (including myself) and often wastes the community's time. Given his history, HanzoHattori/Niemti has unfortunately and very obviously failed the community for the last time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose #1 and #3 for now, neutral on #2. I agree that Niemti's interactions can be problematic, but I think he deserves a chance to see the results of the RfC and reconsider some of that behavior before a ban. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support #2, Neutral on #1 and #3. After Niemti's response above, I'm much less optimistic about the situation. And as someone points out below, the number of editors who now refuse to work with Niemti because of these flare-ups is becoming an increasing problem. At one point recently, all of the five oldest nominations at WP:GAN were Niemti's, because so many regulars were no longer willing to take them on. It's not a tenable situation, and shouldn't continue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Support - As I said in the RFC, he is either unwilling or unable to change, and his behavior is unacceptable, so I see no other choice. Sergecross73msg me 12:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
A very difficult decision indeed. On the one hand, I have seen Niemti behave in a superfluously aggressive manner towards those who disagree with his perspectives, and the passive harassment of Sjones23 is out of bounds. Civility is not negotiable — it is a cornerstone of this project. In an ideal scenario, a disagreement between two or more editors will lead to a compromise that works for the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole. Equally important is editor retention, being able to maintain a collegial atmosphere within our community. If Wikipedia fosters a toxic environment, it will drive away many valuable contributors. Yet, Niemti's content contributions are generally of immense value. His interests are broad (and admittedly very similar to my own), and wherever he gets the chance to work on an article by himself, good things tend to come from it. I was the most vocal supporter of unbanning him last year, and I'm still not thoroughly convinced that he ought to be banned once more. Nevertheless, he needs to change his attitude. If that cannot happen, then he will have forfeited his final chance and be forced to depart. Kurtis(talk) 13:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I was not fully aware of the situation between Niemti and Sjones23 when I made the above comment. I think a mutual interaction ban would probably be best for all involved. Kurtis(talk) 06:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand that a mutual interaction ban would work, but I have doubts about it since I don't want to talk about that situation. I only got swept up in the controversy back in August against my better judgment and discussions regarding this we're taking place far before his block a week or two ago. Since there are concerns about changing the situation towards me, I am going to back out of this discussion but I am still going to watch it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that's probably a good idea. Being entrenched in one of Wikipedia's civility disputes as an involved party is a soul-sucking thing, believe me. I've seen many other good men fall prey to the downward spiral. Kurtis(talk) 05:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Neutral on the idea of sitebanning him; closer, please don't count me when you're deciding to close as ban or don't-ban. However, I'm opposed to the mechanics of this proposal. (1) It's not good to community-ban someone indefinitely from appealing a community ban to the community. Arbcom is already too powerful, and giving them the right to officiate in this specific situation when the community will be able to decide to unban or keep-banned is a bad idea, both because they don't need extra things, and because it's wrong to say that the ban may not be appealed to the community. (2) If we enact your proposal, we'll make it harder for him to appeal his siteban than his topic bans. Why? (3) You're using both "banned" and "prohibited" when you appear to mean the same thing; please change one to the other, or please explain why "banned" and "prohibited" aren't the same. (4) Finally, a basic question — why topic-ban someone and siteban him too? Do one or the other, or do neither, but not both. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It's a menu of options, not a single coherent proposal. NE Ent 16:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support on #1, strongly on #2. The third one would be moot if the first one passes, but would be second choice. Clearly he doesn't care that he's disruptive to others and shows zero desire to change. Wizardman 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Undecided on all three points, for the same reason -- there are evident behaviour issues, but the actual content work is definitely non-negligible and if that work could be continued, the encyclopedia ultimately wins. However that doesn't excuse the actions outside of content work and there is also a real possibility or driving off other good editors. I would, without hesitation, Support a fourth, intermediary option of a mutual interaction ban with User:Sjones23 but that doesn't resolve the rest... If anything, option #2 seems reasonable and potentially helpful but I worry that if he cannot improve an article all the way through to GA, including the nomination process, he might not be motivated to work on the articles themselves... I will keep reading the points and remain open to changing my mind. Note I am in no way defending his attitude or behaviour and I believe it is a very important problem; however he's done good article work and if we could find a solution that would still allow the encyclopedia to be improved by his work, that'd be ideal. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
After seeing the discussions, I am revising my position -- Oppose option 1 because I do not believe the community has been fair and neutral towards Niemti and I believe that some amount of baiting happened. I am however not opposed to having someone review whether the behaviour goes against the conditions of his previous unban. Neutral option 2 because the problems are evident, but not on every review which begs the question of whether the issue really is with Niemti... Oppose option 3 because the quantity and quality of his work is impressive and there are no problems with his editing; merely with his behaviour. Strong Support Interaction Ban between Sjones23 and Niemti; both have agree anyhow. I also believe Sjones23 needs to be reprimanded for his apparent hounding, or at the very least for his inability to disengage despite stating numerous times he was disengaging. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
1a. Support site ban per prior AN discussion. here
1b. Oppose appeal to ArbCom provision -- appeal should be to community in six months
Before this gets enacted, I'd like a moment to gather a few diffs and compose a comment please. — Ched : ? 17:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I find myself a bit puzzled by the idea that the community would ban him and he could only appeal to arbcom. I'd like some clarification on the logic behind that choice. I would support the idea that WP:BASC act as a gatekeeper, i.e. he must convince them to open the discussion, but as written I don't really get it. However, I believe we made a mistake in lifting this ban in the first place. If we reward someone for socking we can hardly be surprised when what they learn from that is that the rules do not apply to them and they can act however they like without consequence. So, support any and all of the above but would like the wording on the ban idea tweaked slightly. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I see a lot of people are discussing the appeal to arbcom part. So, I've been more passive with this whole thing lately, but I don't think that was something people especially felt strongly about. I think the main idea was the "6 month ban with opportunity to be appealed", I don't believe there was much emphasis meant to be placed on who he appeals to. I could be mistaken though. Sergecross73msg me 17:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I endorse this outcome. The idea of appeal to BASC is a form of independent review, and it is a way of forestalling the endless debates between supporters and others that we have seen in the past. Banned users seem not to have a big problem using this process, there are not enough of them to produce any challenge of scale. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments: So, we seem to have taken a 48 hour block, 7 months later pounded a two week (escalated) block on top of that, kept a running list of grievances (which usually get deleted as attack pages in user space) by holding open a Five month long RfC/U (for those unfamiliar with that particular process, it usually doesn't go much beyond ONE month), had a total of Three comments from the accused on his own talk since the block (which basically amount to "meh - I'm not mad, I can use the break anyway".), and a closing of an RfC/U which has been allowed to run longer than most Arbcom cases with a "BAN HIM" proposal. On top of that, somehow we can make this an WP:AE ban? (I must have missed that little memo.) I'd imagine this could even be forced through process before Niemti gets back if we try real hard. I mean after all, his first unclosed ban discussion lasted a total of what? 12 hours? 8 or 9 people commenting - but don't let facts distract anyone from removing an editor that managed to get what? 40 articles to GA?, at least one FA (System Shock 2) - in less than a year? With +85% of his over 40k edits to article space? So let's have a recap shall we? Even though Sjones23, I'm sorry .. "Lord" Sjones23 .. promised multiple times to avoid this editor (personally I consider them to be very unfulfilled promises) - they continue to be a driving force for this ban. (a few interesting reads from just Aug. of last year: link, apology and question, another "question", and this one is nothing short of a real gem - closing the very thread where Nimeti raised the harassment issues - that's a keeper if I ever saw one). Now, going back to the RfC/U for a moment: What do we have as egregious incivility? And I'll just use the direct quotes from the initial links since that seems to be the core of our editor's problems: "I guess you hate chapters in most books", "...now go and renominate", "I told you to stop fucking up my articles, didn't I?" (I'll fully admit that there's some ownership issues with a comment like that), "You've got to be kidding me,", "Now, if you have something to CONTRIBUTE to the article..." and of course: SHOUTING, (zOMG HE USED THE CAPS LOCK KEY). That is what we're banning people for now?
Now I haven't had the time or the desire to review any of allllll those other things this gawd-awful editor has done which required an entire second page of "additional evidence that Lord Sjones23 felt compelled to create, but perhaps others will. The fact is this: Niemti was never given a second chance. He was hounded, baited, and trolled to the point of exhaustion. I don't question that he could improve in the WP:OWNership areas, and perhaps he does need to brush up on WP:BITE (although Lord Sjones23 is hardly a newcomer). While WP:IBAN is about the only thing I could conceivably consider here, typically that doesn't always work as well in practice as it does in print. Either way, this appears to be another one of those forgone conclusions in which we banish an editor. Do people really, honestly, wonder why we have an editor retention problem on this project? Oh well - thanks for holding off on the close so I could formulate my comments. You folks enjoy yourselves. — Ched : ? 18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You do realize he had like 12 blocks under his other account, right? And all of them related the same same sort of problems being addressed at this more recent RFC... Sergecross73msg me 19:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Ched about the extensive wikihounding by Sjones23. There was also some degree of collaboration between a few people to get Niemti banned.My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Bans have been proposed at the wrong venues a couple times now by different editors. They were good faith mistakes though, not an effort to canvass, if that's what you're getting at. Sergecross73msg me 19:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I am talking about a situation when someone suddenly appears after a month of inactivity, specifically to suggest to sanction Niemti [31], and then disappears again. Sjones23 campaigned for several months to ban Niemti. But whatever. People with short temper like Niemti are easy targets. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh ok, gotcha. Yeah, I cross paths at WP:VG with Bridies, but I'm not especially familiar with that editor or his/her editing habits/patterns, so I really can't attest to that... Sergecross73msg me 20:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Bridies has clearly stated in this discussion, "I'm no longer contributing and am resolved not do so again. Though likewise, Niemti was only partially responsible, in addition to the incredibly alienating get-over-it comments and the gloating in the aftermath from other editors, in addition to the User:Jagged_85 episode (I've not so much as seen it mentioned on the WP:VG talk page that thousands of our VG history articles have been compromised by misinformation) and the ever-present anonymous incompetency and vandalism... Which just added up to the sensation that editing here is too much like pissing in the wind these days. I also had the epiphany that VG content editors almost universally supported banning Niemti; as someone who almost exclusively edited old VG articles, I don't see why see why I should be burdened by anyone else's dogma. What I'd really love to see is a site devoted to, say, pre-2000 video games (and thus potentially complete-able), with similar goals as Wikipedia (NPOV, free-access encyclopaedia), and which could compete in terms of search engine optimisation, but with editorial standards, real name and civility requirements, and more closed authorship." I am not interested in discussing the Wikihounding issues anymore. This has nothing to do with the present situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you please answer a question: why did this new wave of activity about Niemti (as follows from this edit history) has started on March 22 while he was blocked? My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
You are either mistaken or cherry picking. Discussions regarding this we're taking place far before his block a week or two back. Sergecross73msg me 04:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I just want to note that System Shock 2 was promoted to featured article by me, not Niemti. — ΛΧΣ21 05:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I'm not opining on any of the proposals. I just wanted to help close a 4-month old RFC/U that wasn't going anywhere. I'll take the sole blame for the list of possible sanctions being so inartfully drafted as to resist even Sandstein's brave effort to clean up the language. The reason I wrote "appeal to ArbCom" was simply to preclude an individual admin from lifting the ban if enacted, which appears to be what happened last time around. The suggestion above that WP:BASC act as a gatekeeper before the community considers an un-ban sounds like a better option. I was unfamiliar with that committee. I am happy to accept that suggestion as a friendly amendment. Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
First of all, I'm so very sorry about what is going on the project here. At the time when Niemti was unbanned, I provided very inconclusive evidence on my part, and I tried to desperately solve the problem in August, but ended up getting nowhere fast to be honest and I've obviously moved on from the "wikihounding" issue and those things in August are water under the bridge and I wish to put these issues by Ched to rest. I know better to wikihound, bait or troll anyone in the first place. I have been trying to ignore him due to his attitude. And let it be known that being a producer of good content is never an excuse for incivil behavior and I tried to desperately avoid him but I was concerned about his behavior. Niemti has some serious communication errors here, but I made a mistake in promising to avoid the editor (that promise was not permanent), and I am aware about what problems he has here. Let me decide whether I should avoid Niemti or not. Unfortunately, Niemti was topic banned from a biographical article for this exact same behavior. The additional evidence subpage was created at the suggestion of Izno and we have had numerous discussions on his behavior at WT:VG. We need more uninvolved editors to take a look at the situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I will comment on one thing, and one thing only. I most definitely Support an interaction ban as proposed by User:Salvidrim and User:Ched above, with teeth in it, between User:Niemti and User:Sjones23. The comment above says to me that Sjones23 is either clueless or in complete denial about his own continual and ongoing WP:Wikihounding, including a lovely display of gravedancing on the occasion of the current block being imposed. Ched's assessment of that is right on the number. Fladrif (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Fladrif. I can understand that Ched is concerned here and I am so sorry about this once again. If I did anything wrong or clueless or did something to upset you, then I can say one thing: I am sorry and can express deep regret for what I have done back in August. That promise to avoid the user was because I was not sure much can be done about his behavior. But based on his behavior, he was basically uncooperative. I know that I was trying to avoid Niemti but in the end, I let my judgment get the best of me since I do know better than to wikihound or harass this user. I think a possible interaction ban would simply help out very much for me and increase my moral support. If you are concerned about anything my behaviour, bring it up on WP:ANI or discuss it on my talk page. This discussion should not be here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:PETARDFladrif (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I understand where you, Salvidrim and Ched come from with an interaction ban on Niemti and myself. Unfortunately, even though I would support Salvidrim's proposal of an interaction ban without hesitation at a later time and Sergecross73 recommended that I should avoid Niemti because he was causing me a lot of stress, I have doubts about the interaction ban and those comments do not really alleviate any concerns on Niemti's behavior though as most of it took place back before the block. As what Betty Logan (talk·contribs) pointed out to me, the problem with "promising to "avoid" him is that might mean you won't be able to edit the articles you want to edit if there is a large overlap between your editing areas." Having been a user for over 6 years, I understand all of the policies and guidelines, assume good faith and am also a competent editor while maintaining a nice and friendly attitude, and try not to bite any newcomers nor do I intend to harass other users. People dictating what other should be doing by editing articles or what they should be doing with their time is not acceptable behavior. And actually, I have made very valuable contributions in fact. Just to let everyone understand, Niemti's condescending and incoherent attitude does not gain any support for others and that has unfortunately made me lose my temper over it after I got swept up in the controversy against my better judgment back in August, but I got over that quickly. And also, accusing someone of lying would be considered a personal attack and no one can know what people have in their minds, nor can they make conclusions about strangers or other users. It's only stalking if the edits are not done in good faith, but mine are always in good faith and trying to improve upon other's edits, including Niemti's. By the way, Niemti is a good editor when it comes to editing articles but his talk page discussions can be very poisonous to the atmosphere and he is persistently uncooperative. Only if Niemti changes his hostile attitude would I reconcile with him. As what Salvidrim pointed out, demoralizing good editors harms the collaborative atmosphere of Wikipedia. To be honest, I have tried my best to avoid contact with Niemti whenever possible. As what Sergecross73 pointed out to me, I pursued this too aggressively, so if I cause any trouble, I apologize for what I might have done and I never intend to go over my head, but I still believe that the wikihounding case against me was not substantiated, even though I am a longtime and good-natured contributor who has contributed extensively to several film articles and video game articles (specifically the Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts series). Unfortunately, the negative effect Niemti has on Wikipedia outweighs the positives of his contributions, and I don't want to get in over my head when no one is here to defend me. No gravedancing was intended on my part. The additional evidence subpage is not an attack page at all. In any case, I am not at all clueless, nor am I interested in discussing the Wikihounding issues anymore as I want to put these past issues behind us and focus on the current issue here. This is a discussion about proposing sanctions on Niemti, who has had like at least 12 blocks under his different account, HanzoHattori(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), so Niemti has been a user for over 6 years now. For more information, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HanzoHattori and this discussion regarding his un-banning. Also, per Sergecross73's recommendation, I have decided not to participate for now, unless directly addressed, so that the focus of the sanctions would not be misdirected on to myself. To everyone here, please do not go off-topic as this discussion is getting us nowhere fast, and please let this ban discussion go on for a while before deciding on a consensus. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I have had zero interaction with Niemti. (by coincidence I just picked up and article for GA review and noticed that it was written by them (looks like an immense amount of work on a topic that nobody else likely would have done, and could use a bit more work before GA) but they have been blocked and I've had no discussions.) I see nothing in the diffs or evidence at the RFC/U supporting such an extreme measure, and I am becoming more and more distressed by vague lynchings at ani and an, and so am opposing this from a fair and due process standpoint. North8000 (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
As for my opinion on the actual topics, I would personally oppose #1 or #3 based on my experience and the information collected for the RFC. #2 I would support (and possibly a ban from FA space as well; I foresee the same issues occurring there, but I'm not strongly attached). I might also suggest a 1RR restriction on Niemti, as well as possibly a suggestion of a ban from any talk space. Just some ideas. He's a good article writer, but his talk-space input can be poisonous to the collegial atmosphere. No comment on an interaction ban. --Izno (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose for the following reasons. First, I agree with comment by Ched (see above). I think this is classic hikihounding by Sjones23. He refused to talk with Niemti [32], blindly reverted his edits without talking [33],[34], complained about him numerous times on administrative noticeboards and to several individual administrators, promised not to do it again (links by Ched), but continued the same. I noticed this problem some time ago and provided some advice to Sjones23, but he apparently refused to follow. Secondly, after looking at the edit history of this RfC, I can see a few last comments in the middle of February and a couple in the end of February. On March 18, Niemty was blocked for two weeks; I assume he was blocked properly for some kind of wrongdoing. Starting from March 22 (same edit history), almost a month later and while Niemti was blocked, a wave of new activity was started in the RfC by edit of Sjones23. Why? Niemti was blocked and obviously did nothing during this time. It is customary to allow a blocked editor to return back and show that he can do better after the block. Going after someone when he is serving his block and did nothing new is not a good idea.My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support 1 & 2; support 3 if 1 fails. I've only interacted with Niemti at Anita Sarkeesian, where his unacceptable behavior got him permanently banned, but the consensus at the RFC/U is that the problems he displayed there are much more pervasive. That's borne out with a simple look at his contributions. In terms of GAs, I honestly couldn't believe that things like Ayane (Dead or Alive), Ibuki (Street Fighter), or Ada Wong were GAs. His flooding the GA queue and refusal to do anything but the bare minimum of work has had a negative effect on the GA process. This is besides his rudeness and behavioral problems. At this point the negative effect he has on Wikipedia far outweighs the positives of his contributions, and the problem isn't going away on its own.--Cúchullaint/c 19:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, I agree with various others that appeals of these bans should be made to the community.--Cúchullaint/c 17:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Support 2, Oppose 1&3. It's obvious that he isn't the most likable guy, but that's not a good reason to site ban him. Unfortunately, ban discussions like this tend to attract people with personal grudges--that's an obvious weakness of our system. As much as some people love to impose bans, there's really no good reason to do so in this case. His mass GA nominations seem to have been an issue, so let's stop that. We shouldn't use that as an excuse to jump to the "nuclear option" though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support 1, and if that is not accepted then support 2 & 3 as a very poor second best. This is a very disruptive and uncooperative editor, with a history of numerous blocks since 2006: [35], [36]. He has had "second chances" and shown no sign of becoming more cooperative. He has used numerous sockpuppet accounts: see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori, which, which are not a complete list, as Niemti, for example, is not included. His disruptive behaviour has bee discussed numerous times on administrators' noticeboards: [37], [38], twice that I know of at RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori. I am never a great fan of the view that arrogant uncooperative and disruptive editors should not be blocked if they also do a significant amount of editing that is considered good, and for this editor the case for that is even weaker than it sometimes is. The sheer amount of time and effort that could have been employed usefully but has instead been wasted on this editor is considerable: not only in the discussions I have mentioned, but on talk pages, in undoing his damage, etc etc. The point was long ago reached when it was clear that the amount of disruption and waste of effort that this editor was causing outweighed any benefit. He has made it abundantly clear many times that he has contempt for Wikipedia's processes and policies, has responded to discussions about his behaviour flippantly and contemptuously: [39], [40], has made it clear that he has no intention of collaborating, no intention of dropping his ownership stance, etc etc. All this has been going on since 2006, and, during that time, he has shown no sign whatever of changing his attitude. He was permanently banned, [41], but the Niemti sockpuppet account was controversially unblocked by an administrator following a discussion which could not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination be considered to provide a consensus for lifting the ban. In short, we have an editor who, over a period of over six years, has been disruptive, deliberately uncooperative, uncivil, etc etc, and Wikipedia would be better off without him. The only thing I am in any doubt about concerning the ban proposal is why we should invite him to apply to arbcom for an unban in six months: if in six years he has shown no sign of wishing to become a collaborative contributor, why should he be likely to change in six more months? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, and your assessment, as well as Dennis Brown's, Sergecross's and Salvidrim's appear to be the most accurate to me. Even if he applies to Arbcom to unban him for six months, HanzoHattori/Niemti unfortunately shows no sign of wishing to become a collaborative contributor. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support 2, mainly because that is the area I am most familiar with. Neimti has a poor track record of collaborating with anyone that he disagrees with and in the course of a review you are going to get editors asking questions regarding your content. I have a real fear that a newish reviewer is going to pick up one of his articles and have such a bad experience that they will not return, something we can seldom afford with the shortage of reviewers we currently have. I am less familiar with the other proposals, but looking at the circumstances in which he was unblocked and the behaviour thereafter I think we would be better off just reinstating the original ban. AIRcorn(talk) 02:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose all Seems whenever I find people complaining about Niemti the facts don't justify the allegations. The GA reviews are pretty poor. One of the instances I saw, that is noted in the "additional evidence" section linked above, involved the reviewing editor quickfailing based on a cherry-picking of sources that represented at most 10% of the references and even that was supporting very little of the actual material in the article. Vast majority of the sourcing for substantive material was high quality secondary sourcing (UGO, IGN, and other reputable gaming news outlets) with the next largest chunk being primary sourcing to official materials. Not a legitimate quickfail by far. Some of the objections to sourcing seemed to be more the result of a gag reflex than a product of serious review, the claim that "YouTube is not a reliable source" is not credible when the video is an interview with an identifiable person on the official channel of a press organization. When this is a review and article that is supposedly a stellar example of Niemti's problems with the GA process, I am left convinced that the ones who we should be concerned about are those who want to ban a prolific content creator for these kinds of trivialities.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 05:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support 1 (with appeal to BASC or community), followed by 2 and 3 upon return. Niemti's responses to this thread have pushed me over the line to supporting a ban - there appears to be a complete unwillingness to see or believe that he has issues with editing in a civil and collegial manner. It doesn't matter if you believe you're "right" if you nevertheless can't edit without blowing your top spectacularly and endlessly. It's sad when someone who produces good work otherwise can't function within our environment, and I never want to see people like that be "eternal" blocks/bans, but until they're at least attempting to work on the problem behavior we can't allow them to run roughshod over everyone else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
In fact, he can function very well in wikipedia environment as long as he edits alone or with other contributors who are willing to compromise, especially on minor issues (that is what I did). However, he has problems in discussions with multiple editors who accuse him of something (like here on ANI) or want him banned, or strongly disagree on minor issues and make a big deal of their disagreements (such as linking or not linking to something). And he is not alone; there are other contributors with the same problem, perhaps including myself. Having that in mind, he obviously made a mistake by making his statement on ANI and participating in this discussion, instead of sitting out quietly. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Strongly Support 1, 2, and Support 3 if the first two are opposed. The guy simply refuses to collaborate with anyone, using his tens of thousands of page edits to justify his "I'm holier than thou" personality. For someone who is constantly pushing Wikipedia policy articles into people's faces when they don't agree with him (in the Wasteland 2 discussion I was involved in, he did nothing but rudely throw WP:OR links everywhere without considering any differing viewpoints), he blatantly dismisses the core policy WP:CIVIL. He will either dismiss others' asking him to stop being rude, or he will use the other editors' "stupidity" or "stalking" as justification for being rude. Whether or not the interaction between Niemti and Sjones23 can be seen by some as "provoking" Niemti to behave poorly, it is still not an excuse to continue being rude, and Niemti's general behavioral issues have extended far beyond that and with numerous other people, as shown by the original RfC. His reaction to the recent 2 week ban "Oh well, I needed a break" shows that even warnings and temporary bans will not persuade him to change. I and many others have said this before: good article work is not an excuse for rude, uncivil behavior. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support 2 and 3 - My view is the disruption caused by the number of editors who now refuse to work with Niemti is a fairly big issue. Regardless of his good contributions he's having the effect of pushing away other editors and this outweighs his positive contribs. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 20:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support 1, 2, and 3 - note that I am the admin that gave him his current/most recent block. I really feel that Niemti is on some level incapable of working with other editors in a civil manner. Pretty much every conversation of any length he is involved in gets turned into a fight, resulting in his previous ban and blocks. It took him only three days after my warning to get blocked for 2 weeks, and I don't think it will take much longer for the next one if nothing results from here. He's already blown up at someone after misreading their comment (redacted in the above section)- this may be an extenuating circumstance, but how hard is it to not freak out at people in the discussion about banning you for freaking out at people? If Niemti was capable of playing nice with other editors, he would have learned to do so 2 weeks ago or the previous time he was blocked or when he was banned or the other times he was blocked. He won't learn, he wastes more time and effort that he puts in to the project, he needs to go. --PresN 22:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: The comment that Niemti went back and redacted a few hours later in the "statement by Niemti" section about is reproduced here- I thought it was relevant.
ThomasO1989, "in the Wasteland 2 discussion I was involved in, he did nothing but rudely throw WP:OR links everywhere"
WHAT
WHATTT
THIS, this is an incredibly blatant shameless lie, becuause it was actually a literally COMPLETELY OPPOSITE situation - in reality, I was refusing to agree to use WP:OR as Wikipedia defines it and instead fought for using what reliable sources say (in this case: the developers themselves and media reports, which reported in only one way), before I eventually just stopped caring - AND it was ThomasO1989 who was pushing the OR there! Anyone can check it and see! The truth about my real position there, which was actually just absolutely clearly AGAINST any kind of OR, that is now so outrageously being attempted to be totally falsfied, can be probably best seen with this edt [42] - yes this was regarding precisely this very dispute, there were few more statements by me in the same thread, all squarely against any form of OR, before I simply lost all interest and just abandoned this discussion (because I've realized it's not even important and I'm really wasting time for nothing) and let the other users involved agree whatever they would.
And now no I'm logging out, because it was just so awful it made me really angry and just physically ill, I'm shaking now. I just can't believe it. Such lies. What the hell. WTF. No, that's enough,I'm done with that thing here, no more looking. --Niemti (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support 1, 2, and 3 - Yet another editor that had too many "last chances" and felt invulnerable as a result. The long term abusive behavior has to stop somewhere. Let's call it right here, right now, since the evidence is clear. Thanks to those who have done the heavy lifting regarding this editor and have stayed on target. Hopefully your efforts will be rewarded with a full ban, and the encyclopedia will be a better place. Jusdafax 00:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, per Ched. This seems to be a case study in uneven enforcement of civility, in which a group of editors has targeted an editor (not an angel) over half a year. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Support 1, 2, and 3 Enough is enough. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
How about an interaction ban, as above (mutual, not unilateral of course) and "civility parole"? Guy (Help!) 12:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose (this will be my final decision on the interaction ban, but mostly remaining neutral on it, as well as the civility parole) per Fluffernutter and Beeblebrox. Though I partially agree on a proposal not to interacting with this user with regret, I apologize if I was wikistalking (whether intentionally or unintentionally) or uncivil towards any user (including Niemti) in any way (it was never my intention to do so, as I have many positive contributions) and that some of the comments towards me were sometimes off-based. If Niemti does not change his behavior to fit what is expected of Wikipedia, I would rather ignore him. At this point, I really don't care about whether I would support or oppose the interaction ban anymore nor do I care about the wikistalking issues, my only concern was on Niemti's incivility and an inability to work well with others (myself included). I'm sure I did not mean to harass anyone, or break any policy in doing so. I sometimes argue with users over different interpretations of policies and guidelines. Just to clarify, it's only stalking if the edit is not done in good faith. I have been mostly civil, but I feel that I do not want sanctions placed on me at this time. Also, my apparent inability to disengage from the user was an error on my part if I had done so and I did not really mean to disengage from him permanently. I tried to be objective in those previous ANI discussions, but his temper got the better of me and I deny nothing. The truth is, I have not made any promises at all and I did not mean to say disengage permanently. Promises can be broken after all. Niemti will have to apologize to me as well if he changes his behavior. The civility parole is pointless obviously as it doesn't work for me. However, I have doubts that IBANs will throw issues under the carpet, if an editor raises a conduct issue about another, it should be resolved rather thrown under the carpet. It will just prevent one editor from scrutinizing another or following up at DR regardless of the fact he's giving a narrow scrutiny (with explanation of it). To quote ThomasO1989, "Niemti simply refuses to collaborate with anyone, using his tens of thousands of page edits to justify his "I'm holier than thou" personality. Whether or not the interaction between Niemti and Sjones23 [that's me] can be seen by some as "provoking" Niemti to behave poorly, it is still not an excuse to continue being rude." Regardless of Niemti's positive contributions to the project, he tries to drive others away from the project and this outweighs his positive contributions and my point is that Niemti is actually wasting of the community's time with his arguments. However, as what ThomasO1989 pointed out to me, regurgitating what others say will probably not help my case at all and right now, an interaction ban might be pointless in my opinion. Per Beeblebrox, the above proposal to accommodate a user who is unwilling to behave in a civilized manner will seriously cause too much drama for everyone. With that said, I have made an official decision: I will have absolutely no choice but to entirely bail out of this increasingly obtuse discussion for good unless directly addressed so that the focus would not be misdirected at me and I will let other editors to pursue this thread and the above ban discussion. I feel physically sick.Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what is a civility parole? Sandstein 15:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering about that too. If it's pretty much like what it sounds like, it sounds like it would either be pointless, or he's already there. The reason he was given his current 2 week block was because he was warned by an Admin that no more incivility would be tolerated, and mere days later he found himself blocked... Sergecross73msg me 15:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty much like it sounds. For x amount of time, he would not be allowed to make any incivil remarks. Violating that would be an instant block (potentially indef). As you say, it seems kinda pointless right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
A civility parole is where we tell an editor they have to follow the "civility" pillar that everyone is supposed to follow but, since we never actually come to consensus on what is or isn't "civil," it's not very useful (as noted by sandwich et. al. below). NE Ent 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Both editors have now agreed to interaction ban. Although it is virtually impossible to keep up with Sjones' torrent of posts and revisions on this page, he has unequivocally posted several times that he would support an interaction ban[43][44][45][46][47], and Niemti's statement on his talk page states that he would support an interaction ban. Given this agreement from the affected parties, (and Sjones' apparent inability to disengage, notwithstanding repeated promises to do so) the interaction ban should be immediately endorsed as a community sanction on both editors, with escalating blocks as a sanction if violated by either party. Fladrif (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Civility paroles, we have learned through long, painful experience as a community, simply don't work. Everyone has a different idea of what civil and uncivil, and of where the line between them lies, and possible parole violations just end up being debated again on ANI and ending in the same result or lack thereof as if no parole had been in place to begin with. A single or pair of "civility mentor(s)", who had the authority to block and have it stick if he was uncivil, might work if the blocks are designed to be sticky enough. A general "civility parole" free-for-all won't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Pretty much per fluff's comment above. This type of bending over backward to accommodate a user who is obviously completely uninterested in ever behaving in a civilized manner just prolongs the drama with little to no benefit. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment He's pretty much on "civility parole" right now, seeing as I blocked him for 2 weeks at the first incident after my warning, and will block him again for longer for the next one (ignoring discussions related to this AN section). I don't see that making it more "official" changes anything. --PresN 22:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - In my view, we need to lance the boil, not put a band-aid on it. Jusdafax 00:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
No offence Guy, but every time I hear the term civility parole, I let out an emphatically sullen groan. History has shown, as Fluffernutter says above, that such measures are more drama than they're worth. Kurtis(talk) 11:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Jones has already agreed to back off voluntarily; "civility parole" is one of those nice ideas that just don't work in practice. We need to deal with the real problem, which extends far beyond this particular interaction.--Cúchullaint/c 17:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Having in mind that AN is not a vote, but an attempt to reach consensus, here is what I have as the current (Noon Eastern April 2) input on the various proposals, the pace of comments having slowed considerably the past couple of days.
Sanction
Support
Oppose
Neutral
No opinion expressed
1. Site ban, appeal after 6 mos
12
8
2
6
2. Topic ban: GA nomination and review
16
5
2
5
3. Topic ban: Video Games
12
7
2
7
4. Interaction ban: Neimti & Sjones23
5
0
0
23
5. Civility Parole
1
5
1
21
Note: The totals for proposal #4 do not count the involved parties. Neimti supports; Sjones23 most recently states "Oppose...but mostly remaining neutral"
I'll take full blame for any inaccuracy or misinterpretation in characterizing or counting any of the positions enumerated above. My own take on this is that, as of the present, there is no consensus on #1 or #3; there is close to consensus to approve #2 and #4; there is clear consensus to reject #5. Others may view the situation differently, and consensus could easily change with more editor input. I presume that Sandstein or another admin will decide when and how to close. Fladrif (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Further re interaction ban (4) -
From first !vote section, we have 4 yes (Kurtis, Salvadrim, Fladrif, Guy) 1 leaning but not sure (Ched). From second !vote section where Guy makes the proposal explicit as the first part of his two-parter... It looks like the six Opposes there are general, covering both 4 and 5. That would make the total 4 Support 6 Oppose, fails. I invite other comments on the interpretation here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I have contacted all 6 "Oppose" voters in the last section on their talk pages to unambiguously find out if they intended a "No" on both, or just on Civility Parole. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Clarifications: Ched answered he's ok with flexible interpretation on my talk page, but re-stated his comments that leaned against; Fluffernutter was neutral on interaction ban on his talk page; Beeblebrox has not answered yet; Judasfax opposed the interaction ban on his talk page; Kurtis strongly supports the interaction ban on his talk page; Cuchullain strongly opposed the interaction ban on his talk page; Dennis Brown was strongly opposed on his talk page. So after those are taken into account, we have +1 neutral 1 flexible no 1 no ans +1 support +3 oppose in addition to 4 supports from above. I make the final(ish, no Beeblebrox resp yet) tally 5 suppport 3 oppose 1 flexible oppose leaning 1 neutral 1 no answer. I think that fits the definition of "no consensus". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't really work to call it "not vote" (!vote) after calculating percentage totals. (I'm not disputing the close -- it's a reasonable close -- just pointing out the lame misuse of the C family "not" operator.) NE Ent 23:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is in favor of removing the restrictions. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I would like to request lifting of editing restrictions imposed on me 5 years ago in 2008[48] and removal from Wikipedia:Restrict [49]. Since almost 5 years have passed I believe they can be lifted.
Kind regards.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think most if not all of us would like to see a more compelling explanation of why the restrictions are no longer needed. You could start by explaining what you would do differently than before should the restrictions be lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I focus completely on writing and expanding articles and watching for vandalism and blanking. I think that after 5 years I am more serious and completely calm editor, I certainly see my role on Wiki as encyclopedian and disputes or conflicts aren't of interest to me, expanding articles and knowledge is.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Provisional support per WP:ROPE. Lift the restrictions for a month or so, and at the end of the month check back to make sure there's been no recidivism, and if there hasn't, extend the lifting indefinitely then. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The clean period isn't the full five years since the restrictions (but is long enough for me...) due to ongoing blocking, but the unenviable block log of the previous account hasn't been maintained on this one. I'd support lifting per PA. Give then a chance. If it fails, it can always go back on. Peridon (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support lifting per WP:EHWHYTHEHECKNOT. Maybe that should redirect to NE Ent's link... --Jayron32 00:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been involved in some content disputes in which MyMoloboaccount was also involved (from memory, we were on the same 'side'), and from memory his or her conduct was fine - including in the face of some provocations and bad-faith editing. As such, I'd support lifting these restrictions. WP:ROPE obviously applies, especially in regards to the Eastern Europe restriction though (as a housekeeping note, this restriction was never logged at WP:ARBEE). Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose lifting. Nothing has changed since 2008, it's the same good ol' Molobo. He has been more careful to e.g. not exceed the allowed number of reverts a day but he continues to be confrontational and his edits are far away from NPOV. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog(woof!) 11:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Miacek, you'll need to provide some examples of battleground conduct before I am convinced of your stance. As of this moment, he has not been blocked at all since May 2010.Kurtis(talk) 12:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Very strong support — A review of his talk page indicates to me that Molobo is extremely approachable and provides thorough responses when confronted by people who disagree with him. As I noted above, he has not been blocked once since 2010. WP:ROPE doesn't even apply here; the Molobo of today is too mature to figuratively "hang" himself. The restrictions from 2008 are now completely irrelevant. Kurtis(talk) 12:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Support removal; restrictions that hang around and hang around and frustrate quality editors into despair are a problem. Frankly, I'd sunset all sanctions after two years.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. This editing restriction by Moreschi included 1RR restriction and civility. If someone was able to edit for more than three years without edit wars and incivility in this subject area (the block record of MyMoloboaccount is clean), they can do it without restriction. Having a restriction that is no longer needed strongly stigmatizes a contributor and reduces his participation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah surely, he engaged in edit warring in support of his rabid nationalist POV pushing just to the extent that he won't be blocked [50]. Smart strategy! Some other recent examples of his bias, nationalist battleground mentality and anti-German mudslinging: [51], [52], [53] (cf third party comments). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog(woof!) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Molobo's last edit to the first page you've linked to was all the way back in February 2011, and nothing he did there constitutes "edit-warring"; the subsequent references don't show me anything disruptive on his part. You may see him as "a well-known anti-German POV-pusher, who once again crossed the border from his usual hate-mongering, to try to portray Germans as vile dirty creatures" (per the third link you provided), and in turn, he might secretly consider you to be a staunch German nationalist with a bone to pick with him; you both have different perspectives on these issues. That doesn't make him a tendentious editor, and certainly doesn't give you the right to personally attack him for his views, especially when they're debateable to begin with. Kurtis(talk) 16:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have the right to criticize (in your parlance: 'attack') people whose views are ethnonationalist or racist. No, he has not changed a bit from the time his partisan editing was laid bare in 2008. What I offered above contained critical comments from third parties. Also, to consider me as 'staunch German nationalist' would not even come to the mind of a Molobo, as I'm not German nor even have German ancestry. But this is not important here, anyway. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog(woof!) 18:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Estlandia/Miacek-In my edits I have documented many atrocities committed under the name of racism-an idea which I quite certainly oppose. Please don't make such accusations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realized that just shortly after I posted that comment, but it does seem as if you are very, very anti-Molobo. As a neutral third-party with no involvement in the dispute whatsoever up to this point, I don't see any of the issues that got him into trouble in the first place. Kurtis(talk) 00:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I can see reverts here dated two years ago, but the party who made last revert (apparently per WP:BRD cycle, no problem) was Estlandia [54]. I can't make any definitive analysis, but what actually happened was a significant expansion of this article by Molobo [55] (which certainly looks to me as a serious improvement), followed by re-editing by Easlandia and another regular (also seems a good faith effort). This looks to me as an old stuff and hardly a serious problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
As I searched Wikipedia for My very best wishes in connection with MyMoloboaccount, who have such astoundingly similar nicknames, I found as the top result the following Arbitration request for enforcement [56] from as recently as August 2012, subjecting MyMoloboaccount, after which MyMoloboaccount hardly edited Wikipedia. Firstly, the request criticizes MyMoloboaccount for reverting among other things, something that MyMoloboaccount wants to do more frequently now. Secondly, the request says "you, VM, Molobo, My very best wishes, Vecrumba etc, who were found tag teaming". Do you have a history together?--walkeetalkee 23:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Walkee-I have not been subjected to any sanction in the above request as might be misunderstood from your comment, nor was I primary person discussed in that request(and neither am I mentioned in closing statement). Also while I want restrictions to be ended, I am not asking for this in order to engage in any widescale reverts, rest assured. As to the old case from 2009, I was not sanctioned there either.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. Do you two have a history together?--walkeetalkee 23:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not recall such user(although I have edited for long time, so it might be that I have met him somewhere), unless it is a new name for some old account I have interacted in the past.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
No? Then I'd like an answer of My very best wishes.--walkeetalkee 23:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
For someone with less than 500 edits in the project, you are a very good investigator. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant to the request to lift editing restrictions. You should check if I had any editing overlap with Molobo. I think we edited only one article together and happened to have a disagreement (which should not surprise anyone given a contentious suject). But that's OK. Having and discussing disagreements is a part of normal process. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying you didn't know the wikipedia search on the left hand side of this page (which probably billions of people have used)? While your name is nowhere to be found on the page User:Skäpperöd linked to, doing a simple Wikipedia search for "My very best wishes" in connection with "EEML" has this as the top: "I am especially surprised to read that because I wrote nothing about the user:Biophys, whose account was deleted, and the user page user:Hodja Nasreddin has been created instead of that. The Hodja Nasreddin's page now is a redirect to user:My very best wishes. BTW, when the user My very best wishes firstly joined the EE related discussion I genuinely believed that some new unbiased editor came, who is not burdened with old sympathies and antipathies, and whose fresh opinion should be listened. I realised that apparently I am dealing with old Biophys just by accident, and I am pretty sure some other users have been mislead too."[57] Biophys (now My very best wishes) and Molobo (now MyMoloboaccount) are both listed as part of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The advice of My very best wishes/Biophys that I should only search for editing overlap of his new 2012 account with MyMoloboaccount is misleading. In conclusion, User:My very best wishes attack on everyone who opposes allowing User:MyMoloboaccount to revert freely on German articles is not a random coincidence. Also, the claim that they do not know each other appears most dishonest in the circumstances.--walkeetalkee 11:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, you "caught" me. This was never intended as a "fresh start account". The connection between accounts was officially linked, logged and available. I even linked it to my previous account [58], but then removed the link because everyone already knew. Of course I know Molobo as an editor, because as I said above, I had an editing overlap with him in one article from all accounts, and that was a dispute (based on the battleground logic, I suppose to vote "oppose" here, right?). Hence I appear mostly as an uninvolved contributor, especially during last two or three years. But whatever. I could not care less right now if I continue editing on-wiki. Bye. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Easy enough to re-apply, if the issues resurface, so I think this can be considered spent. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Sure. Kurtis explains vwery well all I could say. — ΛΧΣ21 17:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose and request of removing him from all German-related articles. per Estlandia's reasoning. Lifting the restrictions only lets MyMoloboaccount be able to revert-war better. Administrators are barely interested in the range of the German-Polish articles, no matter how obscenely biased an article becomes. A good example is Nicolaus Copernicus recently thanks to a few advocates agreeing with each other to turn it more biased, an article which was kept in an absurdly biased state for days because few people care whose nationality is not involved. With MyMoloboaccount, who warmed himself up on the talk:page of this article just after requesting an end to his restrictions, you can take a guess why MyMoloboaccounts thinks he could need a few more reverts. MyMoloboaccount's contributions for the past 300 contributions or more appear to be anti-German, is clearly an advocate. Why can MyMoloboaccount edit at all? Who is willing to offer their heads to fall when one day people from the outside world realize the madness of allowing such advocates to roam here freely?--walkeetalkee 18:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Walkee-I am not anti-German. In fact part of my family is German itself, and I am member of German minority in Poland(although personally I identify more as a Polish person). It is true that my interests are regarding XIX century nationalism and XX century Nazism in German history, but it's just a speciality I am educated in and which is my hobby.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The samples given by Estonia already prove there's more to it and the other contributions I saw speak for themselves too. Accept a ban from all German-related articles and we can discuss lifting 1RR.--walkeetalkee 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
"you must really hate part of your family" in this context is an ethnically motivated personal attack. Talking in terms of pro- and anti- something (German, Polish, whatever) and about your families is a sure way to derail this request. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Again nonsense, he brought his family as an argument so it would be him trying to derail it. But I'm removing it as you wish to avoid my remark letting the discussion about his editing nature be derailed. I've looked into more contributions of his and my opinion becomes more and more confirmed by every edit I see.--walkeetalkee 21:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Support After five years? Yeah, I think you've earned it for sticking around this long.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose: The restriction was the condition for Molobo aka MyMoloboaccount to have his permaban lifted. Thereafter, Molobo was again blocked 1 year for socking, and while he was blocked continued to disrupt the project through EEML proxies (Molobo was (?) an EEML member). That his huge block log did not become even more huge thereafter was largely due to periods of inactivity.
Block log Molobo
14:12, 16 October 2009 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (account possibly compromised, according to claims by User:MyMoloboaccount)
00:25, 24 September 2009 Daniel (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (Conditional unblock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMolobo&diff=315814702&oldid=315755220)
23:42, 31 May 2009 Avraham (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year (Abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo)
20:50, 23 December 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (civility supervision vio)
19:33, 30 June 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (Clemency is a virtue: user has agreed to stick to 1RR per week and civility supervision)
13:35, 12 June 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Back to revert-warring again, no understanding of the princinple that Wikipedia is not a battleground. The year-long block was a last chance, one you have failed to take)
13:33, 12 June 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (to reblock, too short)
04:22, 12 June 2008 Khoikhoi (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (resumed edit warring (across multiple pages) immediately after three-day block, 3RR violation on Strategic bombing during World War II, no signs of effort to stop edit warring)
02:39, 7 June 2008 Khoikhoi (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR violation at Battle of Grunwald; length due to previous block history)
05:34, 24 June 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year (Used up all your last chances: the edit warring and incivility continues, and shows no sign of ever stopping.)
21:10, 22 April 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 06:16, 10 May 2006 (back to a month)
06:51, 16 April 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (per consensus to extend this to indefinite; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring)
06:51, 16 April 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (to extend)
06:16, 10 April 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (egregious and disruptive wide-scale edit warring; just returned from a week-long block for same, 11th such block; see WP:AN/I)
15:47, 29 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (3rr on German Empire)
22:30, 23 March 2006 InShaneee (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (blocked in error, bad tip)
22:14, 23 March 2006 InShaneee (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (3RR violation)
15:19, 16 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 4 days (3RR on Potulice concentration camp)
23:07, 7 March 2006 Splash (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (unending edit warring, no response to previous 3RR vios, just got another one)
16:24, 3 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (Doubt)
16:46, 2 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 48 hours (3RR evasion)
16:46, 2 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (resetting - evasion)
13:26, 2 March 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on Września)
12:45, 21 February 2006 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on German Eastern Marches Society)
12:45, 25 January 2006 Splash (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (resetting evasion of previous WP:3RR block via User:82.139.13.231)
12:45, 25 January 2006 Splash (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (resetting 24h block after evasion)
18:48, 24 January 2006 Splash (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Simon Dach)
00:10, 16 November 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (unfairly blocked, abuse of admin rights)
23:19, 15 November 2005 Wiglaf (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
03:32, 31 October 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (block without reason, abuse of admin powers)
03:31, 31 October 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (block without reason, abuse of admin powers)
01:40, 31 October 2005 Wiglaf (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 6 hours (reading up on policies)
00:57, 31 October 2005 Wiglaf (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (to have time to review Wikipedia policies)
23:26, 18 October 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (blocked for single small edit, this block is an abuse of admin rights)
18:31, 18 October 2005 Chris 73 (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting Wikipedia, repeated offender)
13:17, 5 October 2005 Piotrus (talk | contribs) unblocked Molobo (talk | contribs) (1) disruption of Wikipedia is not a policy, and I see no disruption in his action, 2) users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict)
04:58, 5 October 2005 Chris 73 (talk | contribs) blocked Molobo (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption of Wikipedia, see user talk)
Block log MyMoloboaccount
19:35, 17 December 2010 Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) blocked MyMoloboaccount (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 1 second (previous blocklog as User:Molobo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMolobo)
19:12, 27 December 2009 Rlevse (talk | contribs) blocked MyMoloboaccount (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 23:59, 31 May 2010 (reinstitute block of original Molobo acct)
Molobo identified as nationalist forumtroll Shade2 (evidence from EED Arbcom)
Evidence Molobo=Shade2 from the Piotrus2 Arbcom [[59]
+
Molobo => Shade2
+
1)
+
Molobo
[60]: "Studnicki sent to mental institution" (a snippet that doesn't even mention the first name nor any other background information, to which only one sentence of one source on the web seems devoted to [61])
+
Shade2
[62]: "The German history in regards to Poles from past centuries, limited any cooperation to few desperate ideologists like Studnicki or criminals. Studnicki btw ended in mental asylum. Which likely speaks what kind of people considered alliance between Poles and Germans." (apparently he found that one source)
+
+
2)
+
Molobo
[63] "And you have to remember that as Selbstschutz was made out of fit men, it didn't include women, children and elderly who compromised part of population also." (unsourced consideration)
+
Shade2
[64] "Considering the fact that they were able men, exluded elderly,women and children, an overwheling number of Germans supported Genocide of Poles" (same here)
+
+
3)
+
Molobo
[65] Molobo categorises himself as an atheist and "transhumanist".
Less than two months before the following incident, a member of the League of Polish Families had asked for an investigation if the teletubby Tinky Winky was homosexual and did not back away in time before laying herself open to ridicule ([66]). Although there are tons of secondary and other sources on the net on this unimportant question, Molobo contributed a chunk of text from a trivial primary source of no significance.[67]
+
Shade2
[68] He provided exactly the same primary source as an argument only three days later.
+
+
5)
+
Molobo
[69] Molobo made a sudden and unusual excursion to Buddhism to state on a talk page possibly something like that information about discrimination of the handicapped in Buddhism would be useful here. "It would be of use for about discrimination of carbon paper (calque) and children with inherent defects in tradition of buddhism." (poltran.com translation)
+
Shade2
[70] Only 2 minutes later: Shade2 made a sudden and unusual excursion about "disabled people in Buddhism". "I have heard", he kicked off, that there was "certain" discrimination against "people born with disabillites" and asked in vain for more information. As examples he noted those being "blind, deaf or crippled".
+
Molobo
[71] A few hours later, Molobo noted those being "blind", "deaf", mute or "crippled".
+
Molobo
[72][73] 1 1/2 years later, Molobo made a sudden and unusual excursion about "disabled people in Buddhism". "I have heard", he kicked off, that there was discrimination in "certain" elements against "people born with disabilities" and asked as concisely for more information.
+
+
+
+
Shade2 => Molobo
+
+
5)
(see above, it also provides evidence for this one)
+
+
6)
+
Shade2
[74] (requires registration) A Russian forum member started a thread with his discovery that Merkel had a picture of Catherine the Great in her office and wrote: "Never knew Germany were sympathetic to Russian leaders." Shade2 commented "the Merkel gest is far more symbolic- despotic Catherine was the one that together with absolutists Prussia destroyed democratic Poland and allowed the two states to begin working on dominating Europe. Merkel sign therefore symbolises Germany desire to destroy democracy in Europe".
+
Molobo
[75] Five days later, Molobo cites a newspaper article published a year before that. Only a small paragraph of it mentioned that Merkel avoids being compared to Thatcher, had a picture of Catherine the Great and was fond of quoting a sentence from Hillary Clinton's autobiography. Molobo took the Catherine the Great out of this context and put his own spin on it by focusing on the Partitions of Poland by Catherine the Great, though the source had made no mention of that. "For (after) on chancellor Angela Merkel zaprzysiężeniu, it has inserted catherine for cabinet for partitions of poland tsarina II responsible portet" (poltran.com translation).
+
+
7)
+
Shade2
[76] Above, in 2), he also added a map and argued that 100,000 took part in an organization.
+
Molobo
[77] Eight days later he used the same map in the Polish Wikipedia.
+
Molobo
[78] A few months later, Molobo recapped the post and copied both the number (100 000) and the map. Since it was his number, he also found the source that the post did not include.
Molobo started an agitation for China in 2008, with the start of the Tibet conflict: [80][81][82][83][84][85][86]. He also visited the article on the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony to complain about a section about the fake representatives of other ethnic groups ([87]), claiming it looked like "sinophobia".[88]
+
+
+
9)
+
Shade2
[89] "Or were two of your grandparents members of the allmighty German resistance-one of those huge organisations that had...oh now I remember-SIX members as the White Rose. Totally huge number compered to the small 500.000 Poles in Home Army." (reduction of the German resistance down to (an exemplified) six persons and contrasting this figure with the total number of people in the Polish Home Army)
+
Molobo
In his deleted "German collective guilt" article ([90][91][92]): "Opposition to Nazi regime that didn't support some of its goals also existed, for example White Rose movement which counted 6 people during the war. In non-German countries such movements were larger, for example in Poland the Polish Home Army] counted 400,000 members". (same thing here)
+
+
10)
+
Shade2
A forum member tried to convince that the "recovered territories" were war compensation and cited a paragraph from Wikipedia for Shade2.[93] Shade2 was not amused and simply "removed this incorrect sentence" ([94]) from Wikipedia, which could only be referring to this edit.
+
Molobo
Just a few days ago, he tried to maintain the debunked "recovered territories" theory again,[95] misrepresenting the source.[96] After all, Molobo wants more money from Germany for war reparations.[97] Also, he bemoaned that "major areas" have never been "recovered" from the Germans.[98]
+
+
11)
+
Shade2
His IP, verified in 10), also contributed to the talk page of the expulsion from Poland article.[99] A few minutes later, already another IP of that kind edited the article.[100] Among other spin in this edit, he added "in order to repair damage caused to those countries by German agression" into a verified piece of text whose stated source did not verify the new addition. He also tried to dress up forced labour camps as mere "transit camps".
+
Molobo
Molobo replicated this and added elsewhere "to repair devestation made by German agression" into a verified piece of text whose stated source did not verify the new addition.[101] And yesterday he tried his "transit camps" again.[102]
[107][108] In April 2007, Shade2 used two different IPs, verified in 10) and 11). Since the second one started merely 15 minutes after the first one stopped, he couldn't have changed his location and a good look-up program should find the same location for the two, like whois.
+
Molobo
[109] in August 2007, Molobo already slipped his IP after his 1-year block. Entering this IP into a good look-up program and it will be clear it's Shade2's range, not his old one.
I've removed overly long (26k+!) attempt at re-fighting cases and grudges from long past. Please just include links if you must, don't repost entire ArbCom pages here.Volunteer Marek 20:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Probably also worth pointing out that Skäpperöd was canvassed here [119] by walkee (a recently re-activated account with fewer than 500 edits who's never posted to AN/I before).Volunteer Marek 20:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Copy/pasting entire ArbCom case pages of dubious "evidence" (stuff submitted, and then rightfully ignored by ArbCom when it was first written) from four or five years ago is simply disruptive. Same goes for copy/pasting some four or five year old rant by an anonymous troll (more of this "evidence"). IF you really have to do it, then at least the proper way to do it is to LINK, not copy paste 26k of text onto AN.Volunteer Marek 21:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support_the end of restrictions. Molobo should be allowed to edit as long as he obeys the rules. He is a serious editor who should to be allowed to contribute to the project--Woogie10w (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support lifting of restrictions. Five years is a lifetime in Wikipedia. Poeticbenttalk 21:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Observation: this report has been almost dead for a long time now. But after finally evidence was posted to this page, suddenly three users associated with User:MyMoloboaccount arrived all part of the Eastern European mailing list arbitration: Woogie10w, Volunteer Marek, Poeticbent. All came in less than one hour! :-O --walkeetalkee 23:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Observation: Nine completely uninvolved editors, including several administrators have supported the proposal. The only people to object were Miacek and Skapperod - two users who've had numerous disagreements with MyMoloboaccount in the past and who've been hounding him for several years (with Miacek doing it even recently) - and one sketchy account, with less than 500 edits, and which has never posted to AN before, that was recently reactivated seemingly for the purpose of jumping into fights. And that account (i.e. Walkee) canvassed Skapperod to this page. And then Skapperod posted 26 thousand byte copy/paste of five year old ArbCom case "evidence" (and it's charitable to call it that - it was dismissed when first presented) here, disrupting the page. And then his buddy Miacek edit warred to keep it here. Gee.... maybe you think that me showing up here (notice I haven't even written "Support" - which I do, but I didn't want to even given an *impression* of bias) has something to do with Skapperod's disruption of this page by bringing up (yet again) his tired old screeds and rants from four, five or six years ago (I've lost count how many times he's reposted this junk. ArbCom didn't pay attention to it first time but he still insists on refighting all those old battles). If you bring someone up by name, then don't act surprised that they show up and respond. And drop the innocent act.Volunteer Marek 23:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support removing restrictions. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Give this editor the necessary WP:ROPE. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Support It's unfortunate that some have chosen to see this as yet another chance to rehash very old grievances. The proof is in future, not past, behavior. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:OFFER. If I count correctly, at this point the only three users opposing are two which have a long and bitter history of disagreeing with Molobo, and an editor whom I have never met before but whose familiarity with the topic and old, nearly forgotten fights raises some eyebrows (who's pulling the strings, hmmm?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"It seems to have gone now, but [on March 29th] I had a load of 'nanny says' type info coming up when performing admin actions (i.e. deletions and blocks). There was so much, I had to scroll down to get to the blocking bit. What was it there for, and why's it gone again? (Note I am not begging for its return - just being nosy...)" As no-one there seems bothered, did any other admins get this, and does anyone know what was going on? Peridon (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Not clear what you mean. Did you find a ton of junk on top of the "You are about to delete..." and "You can use this form to block editing access" pages? Neither MediaWiki:Confirmdeletetext nor MediaWiki:Blockiptext has had substantial revisions lately. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There were lists of dos and dont's, lists of sensitive IPs (quite useful, really), and even the Action completed page had links to this, that and the other on it. I'm using Monoblock, in case that makes a difference (can't stand Vector - I even change prefs on any foreign Wikipedia I go on so I can find my way around). I'm trying to remember if it was only like this the one day, or for the day before as well. Surely I can't have been the only one getting it? Peridon (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Weird. I'm on Monobook for the same reason, and I don't remember getting anything unusual, even though (as my log shows) I performed a bunch of deletions on the 29th. We have the list of dos and donts and the list of sensitive IPs on the Blockiptext page, but it's no different from what I've seen for a long time. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want them back, set your interface language to "en". Not British English, not Canadian English. All of the "nanny says" kind of stuff only shows up in the plain English version of the site. There was a problem with selecting overrides of the user interface based on language settings. For a while, I was getting volumes of English on every action I took even though I keep my user interface set to Dutch. That change got undone because it really irritated the foreign language users. I think someone should undertake the effort to realign all the English interfaces, though.
Wow, that is weird; I just changed my preferences to en-gb temporarily and was surprised to see how slim the pages are. I had no clue that we had different texts of this sort for different languages. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Ah. I'm set to Brit English (I think - haven't looked for a long time, and certainly hadn't been messing with preferences here). I can't remember when I last blocked an IP, so I won't remember what the screen looked like. Odd that I got it for a day or so, though. Probably one of those 'inexplicable occurrences' that I remember an Apple manual saying could happen... Peridon (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am on Brit English. Peridon (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
You were just being treated to the American English version of the site because your preference for British English was being ignored whenever there was a custom message.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
For some reason, we get the blockiptext even when we go to block a registered user; see what I mean by going to Special:Block/Nyttend and Special:Block/64.85.214.145, although please don't hit the "Block" button on either one :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Can't see any difference from what I get on the registered one - and the IP doesn't have anything more. Slightly different tick boxes, but that's all. Peridon (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I just tested this, and I agree that it is weird. I don't particularly want to change my preferences to British English, but there are times when it would be nice not to see the screensful of advice, instructions, and admonitions that we U.S.-English admins are "treated" to. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There's other differences in non-admin things - in the contribs lists we get top where others get current. More concise. Also, others get 'edit this page' where we just get 'edit' - I presume the others aren't expected to know which page they're editing without being told... <8-) Peridon (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
While I don't want the full set on en-GB, I can see a potential use for the IP info to be available as a drop-down or drop-out or whatever. Might it be useful for all sides (we don't seem to have heard from Canada yet) to have it all in a compressed form so it can be accessed when needed? Save on bandwidth for those not on broadband (still some around) or on dongles (like me on campsites, trains or other odd places)? If we do, can we have top instead of current, and just edit in the button? 'This page' is a little unnecessary. Peridon (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Where do people actually have discussions to agree on this stuff? Who decides that there's some earth-shaking reason to override "top" to "current" or "edit" to "edit this page"?—Kww(talk) 18:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was Village Pump (Tech), but I've not had much joy there with this one. As to why, perhaps it's that GB uses more concise English. American English is often more wordy in many ways (the Pentagon and the politicians are well known for it, but it goes much further. Just an opinion - don't ask for diffs... Peridon (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The reason is that the default language of this wiki is US English. Whenever a page in the MediaWiki namespace is edited (for example, MediaWiki:Edit), the change only affects US English users (which is everyone except the select few who have changed their preferences to British English). The corresponding British page is MediaWiki:Edit/en-gb, which hasn't been modified (meaning that British users get the default message "Edit").
There are changes in the pipeline that would add a "fallback" mechanism, so that British English users would get the custom US English text, rather than just the default British text, if no specific British text has been added to the MediaWiki namespace. The change Peridon noticed was a failed attempt at implementing this, which was soon reverted. Hopefully that makes some sense... the bottom line is, don't use British English :) — This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If the change involves us Brits getting the full how-to manual, I oppose it. I mean, some of the stuff already is a bit OTT. When you're an admin, do you really need to have it pointed out that clicking the Delete button will delete a page? You've already clicked one Delete button to get to the Delete screen, so clicking the second one is what you're there for. Cases involving drunkenness or little brothers (or possibly even drunken little brothers...) are a different matter, where no-one is going to read nanny's caution anyway. Put the instructions in as a collapsed section with a nice bright XP type colour so any admin who hasn't deleted anything for three years can refresh their memory, or make it a button controlled pop-up to minimise downloading. I rarely block IPs, so access to the sensitive list might be useful for me - and anyone else who can't memorise it. But we don't need this stuff in full every time we click delete or block. Perhaps the American English users will agree on this. (Still nothing from Canada - there are Canadian admins, aren't there?) Peridon (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Which gets back to my earlier question: where are these changes agreed upon? It seems that the people editing the interface tend towards verbosity, and I'm not sure where we are gaining consensus that this wordiness is a good thing. It appears to be more of a case of constant addition with no one ever pruning.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
There's an answer at the Changes and queries threat at VP (Tech). Peridon (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This page has a chronic backlog, I have recently closed a number of requests, however I would prefer someone/admin with a little more experience to take a look and close 4 threads that have been open for over 6 months. (normal time is only 7 days):
Buler....Buler.....anyone? Werieth (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you settle for a not an admin Ent with no experience? First one dealt with. NE Ent 17:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC) And last. NE Ent 23:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC) And another... but someone else gotta do the last one. NE Ent 23:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I only just noticed the 'User rights management' below the "block" and "email" buttons in the toolbox on userpages and user talk pages. Was this not there before or should I start going to bed before 8am so I notice things more? - The BushrangerOne ping only 11:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's been there at least since I got the bit in November. More early nights I think. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 11:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Can't say I'd noticed it either. I suppose it saves a click going to the contribs list when modifying people. Peridon (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It's new — I've always had trouble remembering how to get there, and I wouldn't have had to search for it if it were over there. I was planning to ask about it before long but hadn't gotten around to it yet. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Not a thing I've used often, but it was at the top of the contribs page - and still is... Peridon (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not what we mean. This is the box you see when you go to someone's contributions page. Bushranger and I are talking about the toolbox on the left side of the page; when you go to a userspace page, a "User rights management" link has appeared between "Email this user" and "Upload file". Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, oops, I should learn to read. :-) I don't know how to find out when *that* link was added. Graham87 13:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously any editors baffled by a simple wikilink lack the necessary competence to be entrusted with admin privileges. I've filed the appropriate requests at WP:BN -- ya'll should be seeing the links vanish shortly. NE Ent 14:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the link on the footer; I never noticed it, either :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I found this, could someone delete the article and block the account for advertising? Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Done - but why didn't you just tag it for speedy deletion? Peridon (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Mostly because I'm an idiot. But thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications[edit]
This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC), less than 36 hours from now.
The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Avraham, MBisanz, and Ponyo, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee.
Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access but are expected to not make regular use of them unless needed. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.
Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.
If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 30 June 2014. Once again, the application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available here.
For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Am I correct that templates should stay off the articles for April Fools AfDs? User:Snotbotcontribs is restoring them. RyanVesey 01:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I think so. We could just shutoff the bot for the day. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You can fix that by removing the template that says "remove this template when closing AfD" as the presence of that is what Snotbot uses as a basis. One can also add a template to the article to deny Snotbot, but the former is simpler and keeps matters completely out of mainspace.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 01:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Or, so people don't have to actually read this page to know how to make a joke, an admin can hit the blocky button for a day :) gwickwiretalkediting 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate's answer is better. Snotbot has amny other functions that we don't want to disrupt. RyanVesey 01:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
D'oh, I forgot that nowadays people use one bot account for many things. Any way for an admin to disable the one task (like a "on/off" page?)? gwickwiretalkediting 01:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've dropped Scotty a note. 28bytes (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have already taken the liberty of removing the template from the only joke AfD that still had one.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 01:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to create an edit notice for all AfD pages/subpages reminding people to remove that template if it is an April Fools nom? RyanVesey 01:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Because of WP:TW, that'd do nothing. And because I am Mayor Bloomberg hacking Wikipedia, Por nuestros hispanohablantes, porque muchos usan WP:TW, no podemos tener un dia de April Fools porque tenemos robots que son estupidos. gwickwiretalkediting 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You need Lydia Callis. In any case, I disagree, those commenting on the AfD will see it and remove it. RyanVesey 01:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The bot won't be shutting down for April Fools jokes, especially since the vast majority of them aren't even remotely funny. I've taken the liberty of closing all of the joke AfD's that are currently open. I see one or two admins have been doing the same thing. I hope more of you will help. Joke AfD's are disruptive, there are plenty of other places where people can make jokes, give it a rest. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 02:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Scottywong, proving once more why no one ever invites him to parties.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 03:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
@OP: No, you are not correct, the templates should stay on the articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I for one think this (and know others do too): Nothing in articlespace, ANI, or AN. Go all hell (within reason) everywhere else, but no tags that someone may think are real (i.e. don't leave the MfD tag on WP:OS). gwickwiretalkediting 02:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll eventually be going to sleep at some point, so I won't be able to babysit the kiddies all night. So, if someone decides that they want to make a joke AfD (even after acknowledging that nearly every joke AfD is not funny and just makes you look like an idiot), and you don't want Snotbot to add the AfD template to the article, you have to make sure that the AfD is not in CAT:AFD. You can do this by removing the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template from the AfD page. It goes without saying that you should also remove any notices from the talk page of the article's author (if you used Twinkle to start the AfD) and you should remove the {{Old afd multi}} from the article talk page after the AfD is closed (if the closer uses a script to close the AfD). ‑Scottywong| express _ 03:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
How about people just have the damn sense not to nominate articles for deletion as an April Fool's joke? I really don't understand why anyone thinks this crap is even remotely amusing, and would prefer to simply block all participants.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I know that today is April Fools Day and it is natural that pranks, a few of which will be amusing, most of which probably will not, will occur today, but I thought that some ground rules had previously been established for what was acceptable and what was not. I seem to recall that we keep pranks out of article space. Mitt Romney has been AfD-ed and though the notice was removed from the article almost immediately, we still could run into some problems. I was just hoping that an administrator would lay out some firm should read:"clarify the" ground rules so we don't later get into sticky situations. Thanks in advance. GoPhightins! 02:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
As long as the deletion discussion is open, the template should be on the article. The general rule is simple: don't nominate articles for deletion if you don't actually want them to be deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure it's an adminly function, but for what it's worth, here's my bit of advice on this: Don't do any jokes that are going to inconvenience other people. That's setting back the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
My philosophy would be that as long as it's in good taste and stays out of the way of the readers it's fair game, but in watching my watchlist, I have seen various interpretations of what is and is not appropriate, hence the need for some sort of consensus before April 1 roles around again. I was more looking for a clarification of past consensus (if any had previously been established), not a decree from an admin. I have changed my comment to show what I was thinking, not what I typed. GoPhightins! 03:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Attempts have been made at Wikipedia:Pranking and Wikipedia:Rules for Fools but it hasn't been reached in the past. Honestly, I think we need to have a serious RfC on the issue (not today of course). There are obviously differing views of whether April Fools nominations are appropriate, so rather than creating a situation where a fight occurs every April 1, let's figure everything out at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' and create an actual policy for next year. RyanVesey 03:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. This confusion isn't good for anyone: the readers, the people trying to have fun, the people trying to keep the peace, and the confused people like me for whom this is the first AFD for which I have been active and am confused as to what the heck is going on. GoPhightins! 03:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't have much use for them, but joke AfDs have long been an April Fools' Day staple. If some people find it amusing and want to have their fun today, I don't have much of a problem with that. But the articles themselves should always be off-limits - there's no reason for the casual reader's Wiki-experience to be negatively affected.
Having said that...it has been April Fools' Day for about 3.5 hours, and there have already been about 17 joke AfDs (I haven't bothered to check MfD). It may seem drastic, but I think we should give some thought to shuttering the XfD process every April 1st (and no, that wasn't an April Fools' joke). --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, shut down XfD for the 48 hours it takes April 1st to circle the globe. It could probably use the vacation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if we can have the RfC, which I really think we should, I was going to suggest creating a separate April Fools AfD page (as distinct from the April 1 AfD page) and/or limiting nominations to one per person. RyanVesey 03:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I seem to recall that there was just such a section last year.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 03:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That would be nice, nobody will recall anything from this year if the pages keep getting deleted and salted [120]. RyanVesey 03:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I refuse, unlike some others here, to hope for anybody to be sanctioned for April Fools' Day related actions (within some reason) but there is no consensus for deleting and salting April Fools' day noms. RyanVesey 03:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It is kind of pathetic that people can't give leeway for some humor on the day when even our most respected news outlets take a little time to act stupid. We can have crap about Polish women getting wet and spanked on the front page, but apparently we are not allowed to create a satirical AfD about Satan requesting deletion of his article due to concerns about defamation even when you make sure it will only ever be seen in some part of the site no one but us folks actually look at.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 04:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
We have longstanding consensus for keeping April Fools out of mainspace, every year one or two people overstep this and need to be warned, but there is longstanding consensus for April fools elsewhere. {disclosure RFCϢereSpielChequers 05:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, articles do get vandalized and in one such incident, a user moved some pages for April Fools Day and was blocked from editing Wikipedia because of the user's actions. We don't want that to happen, do we? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
PinkAmpersand's basic guide to April Fools for admins
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}|0
| Proceed as on any other day.
| {{#switch:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|1}}
| Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
| Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard = Proceed as any other day.
| #default = Join in if you find it funny; otherwise ignore it.
}}
}}
Simple enough? As I understand it, this is what the general convention is, so I'm not sure why anyone needs to be reminded, on either side of the matter. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not ... exactly the same topic, but this seemed as good a place to ask as any. The semi-protection hidden category doesn't appear to be dated like cleanup categories are. Is there any (easy) way to get a list of articles that were SP'ed on April 1st, to make it easier to ensure that no funny business got stuck in The Wrong Version? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The protection log lists articles that were full- or semi-protected or unprotected in chronological order; you could just go through that; see Special:Log/Protection. The protected pages list can be filtered to only show articles that are semi-protected; see Special:ProtectedPages, but of course that's really, really long, and doesn't show protection date. I don't think there's a log where you can only list articles, semi-protected, on a certain day. It looks to me like your best bet is to look at all articles protected yesterday, in the protection log, and just skip those that don't meet your needs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I had been trying to figure out how to make Special:ProtectedPages cooperate, and was having no success since, clearly, that's not where I needed to be. Thanks! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What the hell (sorry for using profanity)? This looks like a very serious problem. Can an administrator please block Evergreen277? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done Not sure what the requirements are, taking your word for it.--v/r - TP 12:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
As TParis said we should really clarify what the requirements are here. I see these details of what these users can do but I don't see how the community decides who gets this right. Theopolisme - can you tell us if any firm rules have been established? 7 13:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
What I assume is that a campus ambassador gets an instructor in contact with an online ambassador (which Theopolisme is) who gets them squared away with the user right so they can set up their course. There would be no requirement other than that the campus ambassador and the online ambassador said "Yeah, he's an instructor at a College involved in the Ambassador program and is approved to do this class."--v/r - TP 14:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Basically, the current procedure is that (if they didn't get the right direction from an ambassador who already vetted them) an instructor posts a rights request on the education noticeboard, and at least one experienced editor takes a look to make sure the instructor is heading in the right direction with their course plan, and if there aren't any concerns that need to be worked out first, someone grants them the right. At this point, it seems to be about the right level of barrier to entry.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Правичност (talk·contribs) keeps inserting inflations and lies about the number of the Serbs in Template:Serbs infobox, Serbian diaspora, Slavs article though he was explained numerous times why he is wrong, this keeps going for more than a week, while only in Slavs article he did it for more than 4 times only for a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.81.170 (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
For people with OTRS access, there is a ticket at [121] that might be relevant.--Rockfang (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted the legal threat and warned the new editors. I suggest we leave the photo out until OTRS has a chance to sort out the permissions issues. They appear to be mistaken about the current photo as it is clearly public domain, but I think everyone will be satisfied it is replaced with a higher quality photo from Phillips herself that we have proper permission to use. The rest we can handle in the usual way: warning templates, patient explaining, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. The backlog at WP:CFD is getting bigger by the day. I think most of the discussions need an admin to close, so deletions can happen, etc. Hopefully this is the correct place to raise this. Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The municipality is an administrative unit which includes (among other places) the city itself; cfLondon/Greater London for example or Chicago/Cook County for instance. They aren't the same thing. 92.25.92.218 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Very good analogy; I couldn't put it better. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I know that many of us will find this useful[edit]
Form A-001, perfect for every occasion. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I have edited Talk:Nuclear power phase-out so that it is now not a redirect. (It could have been done by any editor - no admin powers needed.) Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; guess I never learned about redirs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
After reverting several instances of insidious vandalism to seemingly unrelated pages on my watchlist, I blocked the above user as a vandalism-only account. However, a look at his contributions revealed a potentially more serious situation. I would appreciate it if an admin with more experience in this area would go over these edits more thoroughly and determine which may require reverting/whether this is a sock of a known abusive editor. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm no expert in that area, but I looked quickly at the contribs before I read to the end of your post, and something cried out 'SOCK!' in a loud voice, even though I've no idea whose. Peridon (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought the same thing before I got to "After reverting" — the username itself is a problem. Why would someone pick such a username when deciding to edit for the first time? The name wouldn't be enough to block such an account immediately, but combined with this account's edits, both a block and a checkuser are warranted. Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that a checkuser of this editor could return quite surprising results, if the established long-term editor behind it was a bit careless with their IP and user-agent. However, I'm just going on a couple of (striking) coincidences... bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a feeling this SPI case will be fruitless, as you will likely be told "CheckUser is not for fishing".—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
As WP:NOTFISHING says, "For example, it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded." Fishing is saying "This guy's not nice; he's probably socking, so let's check"; it's completely different from "This indef-blocked user, who has a suspicious username, immediately showed familiarity with precise details and jumped into the middle of other users' disputes on a contentious and sock-ridden topic". Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I did some digging through the history of some of the articles NFG has edited and came up with a possible master. I noted this at the SPI linked above if anyone would care to comment. —DoRD (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sinbad Barron? Really? Sinbad Barron has their own style (in a sense), it would be bizarre (but not impossible) for SB to take cues from another editor like Neutral Fair Guy did. But, still, if the sockpuppet account is blocked then it's blocked. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure, how to do this, but given past competence concerns, I'd like to lodge a standard instruction with the admins, that :
"Until further notice and subsequent reviews by appropriate trusted contributors, any nominations for admin for User:Sfan00_IMG or User:ShakespeareFan00 may be speedily declined, without prejudice to the declining party."
I've had people ask on IRC, why I'm not already an admin.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Strike above, apparently, RfA already needs candidate acceptance, but I'm more than happy to let admins decline in proxy without consulting me at the moment. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
True. But, to save time and headache, you could just ask for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sfan00 IMG to be protected from creation. A note in the protect log could point potential nominators to your talk page. If this is truly a concern, that might be the simplest and most automatic way to deal with it - and it's easily undone if you change your mind. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I was recently addressing a point of vandalism in an article and I noticed that the choice of 'vandal revert' (or sth like that) was missing. Did something change? I am pretty sure my rollbacker and reviewer permissions remain intact, though I rarely use them.
(bonus cookie to can tell what movie the header line is from). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You dont have rollbacker. Werieth (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Right, what Werieth said. Logs related to your account are available here. Your current user groups are [reviewer,*,user,autoconfirmed]. "Vandal revert" sounds like a Twinkle feature or a feature from some other custom JavaScript. It's certainly not part of the MediaWiki core interface. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Ahh crap. That must be it - thanks. For some odd reason, i thought I had Rollbacker as well. Might I find out where to (re)request that permission? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your parenthesis, Jack, I'm hungry and could use a cookie. I wouldn't be surprised if the words occurred in a number of movies, but Eddie Murphy's drunk act in the strip club in Beverly Hills Cop certainly comes to mind. Deor (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Twinkle's admin-specific toolset has received further improvements.
The protect (PP) module had a lingering bug: On an unprotected page, it was not possible to only apply edit protection without also applying move protection, and vice versa. Thanks to Jimmy Xu for finding and fixing this.
The speedy deletion module will no longer fail to delete both the page and the talk page. The root cause of this problem was a MediaWiki bug, but a workaround has been put in place.
Improvements to batch delete/undelete/protect/de-PROD are in the works. Do you use these tools? How could they be improved?
As usual, please direct any feedback, suggestions, or bug reports to WT:TW. Keep up the good mop-work, and remember, Twinkle now polishes floors better than ever! — This, that and the other (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Oooh, advertising. :-)—cyberpowerChatOnline 02:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, if people find that a Twinkle module is buggy, they will just abandon it, so when the bugs are fixed I feel I should advertise :) — This, that and the other (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Batch deletes are very helpful when dealing with a user request to delete all their subpages. I've never had occasion to use the other batch tools. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I had even realized Twinkle had an undelete module. I'm gonna go delete something so's I can test it out... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
My user page?—cyberpowerChatLimited Access 17:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Handled. Rest in peace, Roger. 28bytes (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Roger Ebert has passed away. Question: should his wikipedia account be locked or protected? He did not use it extensively, however he did use it and it was him, which I confirmed myself by contacting him some time ago. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
No, accounts aren't blocked unless the account appears to be compromised. You can place {{Deceased Wikipedian}} on their userpage and then an administrator should go and protect the userpage as is normal with all deceased Wikipedians. After that, it may be worth it to add an entry at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians (pending whether or not he edited a lot). Regards, — MoeEpsilon 03:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
What was the user name?User:Roger Ebert made one edit in 2006 that does not look like the sort of edit I would have expected Mr. Ebert to have made. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, found it: User:Rebert. I'm going to go ahead and redirect the user page of the fake Roger Ebert account to the real one since it was just a throwaway spam account that was only used once seven years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this a kind of post mortem outing? I don't think we should link username and real name, unless they have done so themselves, either on Wikipedia or publicly. Iselilja (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
But he has...see The Master's OP. GiantSnowman 11:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to the email exchange? Iselilja (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Um, that's a somewhat moot point isn't it. It'd be kinda difficult to misread that Rebert is Roger ebert after checking out their user page and contributions. Redirecting the impostor account to the real account wouldn't be a big deal since the impostor account only has 1 edit. Think of it as WP:USURP. Blackmane (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"Figuring out" the name of a user is one thing, I still don't think we normally should post the real name at Wikipedia if they haven't explicitly done so themselves - or otherwise explicitly referred to their username publicly. Iselilja (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any problem here, a number of people already knew it was him and he didn't keep it a secret. I was just thinking that maybe the vandalism account that was created using his full name in 2006 should be renamed to something else, THEN the User:Roger Ebert page be redirected to his account? I wouldn't want anybody unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works to become confused and think that Roger Ebert created an account to post one-off spam/vandalism. - Who is John Galt?✉ 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't that cause more confusion? That Roger Ebert had an account he seemingly created not using his real name to post one-off spam/vandalism? I'd not link the accounts at all (because they're not related) and rename the spam one to avoid confusion. Kennedy(talk) 15:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I've revdel'd the one edit by User:Roger Ebert. Now the only people who can still work out that there was anything out of the ordinary from that account should be experienced enough to know that it was an impersonation account. I don't think a rename is needed, tho if a Crat disagrees there's certainly no harm done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
That should work too and is easier, thank you. - Who is John Galt?✉ 15:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
That (redirection) seems to be totally out-of-policy. No idea why you're doing that. Do you think there is only 1 person in the world with the name "Roger Ebert"? I'm sure you don't normally go around redirecting old accounts to similar names. 88.110.246.208 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
As the one who did it I suppose it is up to me to answer these completely unexpected objections. I don't believe we have a specific policy regarding what to do when a user who also happens to be a very well known person has died, there was another user who registered using their real name for a throwaway spam account that has been blocked for seven years. As our Ayn Rand fan says above, I don't see the problem here. However, if you really want to make a big deal about something so very minor WP:RFD is thataway. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with redirecting the imposter account. An alternative would be simply deleting its userpage and talkpage, which had no substantial comment. I agree with Beeblebrox that we should not spend substantial time debating these non-issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought the idea was, admins did what consensus had decided should be done.
What makes you convinced it was an imposter, and not just some random new user?
Of course there is no point in RFD; it's pretty much impossible to get any results over routine/trivial issues, when admins flagrantly ignore any due process. 88.110.246.208 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of process for process' sake, but if you could direct me to whatever due process you believe I ignored I'd be happy to consider that possibility, even though I am an all-powerful admin whose actions have never, ever, ever been reversed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted the User:Roger Ebert page. WP:OUTING is one of the stricter policies on Wikipedia and includes no exception for deceased individuals. I think creating a full legal name redirect for a user violate that policy, and policy calls for immediate removal. I realizes that Mr. Ebert made little attempt to disguise his role here, but he chose the name he used on Wikipedia and we should respect that choice until requested to do otherwise by his family. Maybe WP:OUTING should be modified for a situation like this, but that discussion and needed consensus should take place first before any such redirects are created.--agr (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOTE: "subject to disclaimers" below may not actually apply, this was tagged with {{GFDL-user-en}}, and after May 2007, en:Template:GFDL-self did not require disclaimers. Please check the image description page on the English Wikipedia (or, if it has been deleted, ask an English Wikipedia administrator). See Wikipedia:GFDL standardization for details.
Note: This tag should not be used. For images that were released on the English Wikipedia using either GFDL or GFDL-self with disclaimers, use {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers}}. For images without disclaimers please use {{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers}} instead. If you are the copyright holder of files that were released on Wikipedia, please consider removing the disclaimers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.191.221.74 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a file hosted at the Wikimedia Commons. Please raise your issues there.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I might add that you did nothing wrong. This was the fallout of a bungle with one of our licensing templates. You can safely ignore it. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
How can we deal with 78.160.xxx.xx? Hundreds of disruptive edits per week[edit]
A long list of Wikipedia articles are currently under attack by an extremely persistent Turkish nationalist who edit wars, vandalizes and pushes an almost absurd POV. For just a fraction of the articles targeted, see this list [122] that only covers article vandalised today.
What this user does is to try to make the whole world Turkish. Virtually any person that ever lived in an area covering almost all of Eurasia can be claimed as Turkish by this user. It is of course utter nonsense, and we are a small army of users reverting this POV-warrior, but the fact that they constantly change IP makes it well nigh impossible to deal with them.
As far as I can tell, there are two possible solutions:
1. We semi-protect all articles they target. That is what we have been doing this far, a long list of articles was semi-protected a few days ago, and I hope an admin can deal with this list [123] very soon. There are two problems to this approch: we are constantly one step behind, and over time we will end up with hundreds of semi-protected articles just because of any exceptionally disruptive user.
2. We block the range 78.160.xxx.xx. I was first against that approach, but I'm starting to think it's the best. Yes, it's a large range, but there is no reason users within that range could not register accounts and edit. Within this range are at least 20-30 IPs the user has been using, and I would estimate at least 200-300 disuptions only in the last week. It's never the same IP, none of the IPs involved in the attacks a few days ago are involved now.
Addition. I've notified the users mentioned in my post. I have no idea how to notify the POW-warrior with the dynamic IP but I left the AN-notice of one of the many IPs they've been using today.Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I recommend indefinite semi-protection for all targeted articles. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
That is an option. But then we need a system that makes it more automatic. As soon as we detect this user targeting new articles, it should be possible to report it and have the articles indefinitely semi-protected. It's been many hours since I reported the list of articles targeted today, about 20-30 articles. They haven't yet been semi-protected and all have since been targeted again and reverted by the same POV warrior.Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have begun with temporary semi-protections of this list but I need to log out now. Regarding the range block it should be noted that the 85.99.xx range has also been involved [124]. De728631 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support both Solutions, but the second one is more appropriate! How many Articles would we semi-protect? These IPs should be banned, or a range-ban should be there, but account creation should remain enabled in the IP range to facilitate Wikipedia contributors. Faizan (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I suggest disable "anonymous editing/IP editing" and enable "account creation" for those range of IPs. Because those IPs are shared/dynamic addresses and maybe another user/editor needs to create an account. I also support Jeppiz's solutions to deal with this situation. Zheek (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
How frequently does his IP change? Every few days? Hours? Minutes? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The IP changes every few hours, I haven't counted but I think there were at least five different IPs yesterday, but obviously by the same user. Same thing a few days earlier, lots of different IPs in quick succession. Like Zheek and Faizan I think we should consider disabling editing from the range 78.160.xxx.xx as well as 85.99.xx but keep account creation enabled. In the end, it's a more convenient option that eventually semi-protecting hundreds of articles just because of one disruptive person.Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Another option would be to use the edit filter, blocking IP editors from this address range from editing only those articles that contain specific keywords. It's a bit of a pain to implement, but has successfully stopped several similar incidents in the past. However, in the short run, I think rangeblocking anonymous editing from those address ranges while still allowing edits from logged-in users is the best way to go until a more nuanced solution can be developed. -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Done I've now applied anon-only rangeblocks to both of those /16s, with account creation enabled, for a period of two weeks. Let's see what happens now. -- The Anome (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
And if they return? Zheek (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I unarchived the RFPP and {{tlx}}'ed anything that would get it re-archived, so the list will still be there for any admin who wants to provide a liberal dose of semi-protection (or pending changes if it becomes less frequent). Or, for broader solutions, there's always the option of blocking more ranges or, if the IP-hopper starts creating accounts, blocking account creation on the ranges that are already blocked (if that needs to happen, someone should file at WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests to check that they're still on the same ranges, and approximate the extent of the collateral damage.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Good. It's better that editors and admins keep watching targeted articles and monitor those IPs' activities (maybe IP-hopper will use new range of IPs). I will report if I find similar activities and new targeted articles. Zheek (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This new IP 95.5.25.10(talk·contribs·WHOIS) is definitely the same user, continuing the quest of Turkifying most of the world.Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Please review Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century version history. He/She (currently 95.5.25.10) has used many IPs (different ranges). Compare those IPs' edits and edit summaries on that template and template talk. This IP-hopper will return. Zheek (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Range 95.5.16.0/20 (up to 4096 users would be blocked). No one else is using this range right now, so I will block it for two weeks. -- Dianna (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dianna. Zheek (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
IP-hopper has not returned in the last/recent 24 hours. It seems that his/her most used IPs are blocked. Zheek (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Zheek. I am glad this has worked. At least two IP addresses are required to calculate a range block, but the more the better. If/when the problem resumes, please collect all the IPs they use so the tightest possible range block can be calculated. I'm not sure which board is the best one to post at, probably the highly-watched WP:ANI. I think it's now safe to mark as Declined the related page protection requests at WP:RFPP, so I have gone ahead and done that. -- Dianna (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dianna. Good, we keep watching all targeted articles. Thanks for your helpful suggestion. Zheek (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
"Turkifying" most of the world? That is a new word, but I believe that if/when this user reappears, he should be given a "block on sight" thing, doing it once is probably worthy of a warning and revert, doing it twice just proves that the user didn't learn anything and should be blocked. I'd say that perma-protection on the targeted articles would be in order, but weighing the risks would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.121 (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
All of them. He wasn't recently warned, so I've given a {{uw-npa4im}} for all of them; one more such statement will be grounds for a block. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Kezemita you misquoted the last thing i supposedly called you. Read the context and it has nothing to do with you. I am merely stating that you have mispresented misyar as 1. Temporary marriage (clearly false) 2. As purely for sexual pleasure (clearly false since its permabent marriage. You want to keep adding this content even though it was already rehected by neutral editors on its talk page. So could you please tell me for once why you keep adding this?Suenahrme (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If you think an editor is pursuing an agenda, repeatedly accusing them of doing so is not going to help. Assume good faith, and try get more people involved in the discussions by request a third opinion WP:3O or by posting a neutral message at a related wikiproject page (wikiprojects are listed at the top of an articles talk page). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Suenahrme, I fail to see how insulting people a way to prove someone is pursuing an agenda. Plus saying "illiterate Sunni" is not exactly a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.121 (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
After a few months in hibernation, another obvious OSUHEY sock has cropped up. I'm ready for this nonsense to be over. Unless you guys have a better idea, I am going to be contacting his boss at my earliest convenience. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
One of the most commonly used chart references on the site, chartarchive.org,[edit]
is now completely down and its sister site, chartstats.com, redirecting entirely there. What other site should be used instead and is there some bot program I could tap into to get it automatically fixed?--Launchballer 10:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
That could probably be done by hand, except there is 8,989 links to chartstats.com, which to all intents and purposes is also down. As a result, over 10,000 links have suffered from linkrot in about 24 hours. I'll ask the Official Charts Company if they can do anything. In the meantime, I suggest we deal with just the top fourty hits.--Launchballer 11:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
This one needs closers for early May. I'm in, for the main part at least. It took 3 or 4 weeks to get closers for WP:RFA2013 (and that's done now, btw, have a look), so I'll go ahead and ask for closers now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have two concerns about this block for sock puppetry.[125],
History2007 has announced Humanpublic's IP on a Talk page. It is true the case for saying that is HP's IP seems strong. But, is the policy on outing people that you can out an editor if it's obvious, or that you can't out an editor? [126]
JamesBWatson has revoked Talk page access from Minorview without warning and without any clear abuse by Minorview that I can see.
Minorview is trying to get a second CU opinion, and stating that he and Humanpublic edited within an hour of each other while living far apart. Admins have been refusing a second CU opinion. Why? Strangesad (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
As usual, you just delight in stirring the pot; you certainly don't do much to improve articles at WP. Minorview's talk page access was revoked for the reason stated on his talk page. In any event, he can still appeal the block, but he has to do so by e-mail. I don't know who "refused" a second CU request; you don't provide a diff for that one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I've notified History2007, JamesBWatson, and DoRD of this discussion; you didn't bother to notify any of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me just ask one other question, because it is so funny. What is the "most frequent sentence" that Humanpublic has ever typed into Wikipedia? Less than 50 article edits, and that is his motto. Guess, before you click here. Enough said. History2007 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the rest of this matter, I do think JamesBWatson should explain why talk-page access was removed. The reason says, inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked and I can't see any such thing. The reason on the talk page itself says "In line with WP:OWB point 3" - citing an essay as a reason for admin actions is not valid.
Note, there probably are good reasons for blocking - only a CU would know that. But why remove talk-page access? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment If ever there was a case for a WP:BOOMERANG, this is it. As Bbb23 already pointed out, Strangesad seems to be on Wikipedia with the sole intention of disrupting. A look at how much time Strangesad spends editing as compared with getting involved in arguments is highly revealing.
I find it rather ironic that Strangesad is so upset that Humanpublic was blocked for his socks. Lest anyone forgets, Strangesad explicitly encouraged Humanpublic to create a sock to avoid the topic ban. [127]. Even though several admins called on Strangesad to withdraw the call to create socks [128], [129], Strangesad consistently refused [130] again arguing for violating the policies [131]. Strangesad also has a strong tendency to go after people who displease here. Even though she retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later, it says a lot [132]. Unfortunately, comments of that kind are not hard to find from Strangesad [133], [134], [135]. In short, Strangesad is a classic example of a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, instead she spends most of her time in arguments like these, many of which she starts herself.
(As for the matter at hand, Strangesad's report is false. There was both a first CU and a second CU, as both JamesBWatson and DoRD can confirm).Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
JBW said he's not a checkuser. So who was the second CU? Strangesad (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
If I understand what has happened properly, DoRD made "redundant checks", but I believe Strangesad wants another admin with CU privileges to do a check, essentially reviewing DoRD's work and conclusion. That seems to me like a complete waste of time, but then so is this thread. As for the IP above, whoever they are, it doesn't matter that it's an essay. It encapsulates James's basis for revoking talk page access. As Anthony said in the last decline, a CU block can't be overturned by another admin anyway. As I already stated, Minorview can appeal by e-mail; otherwise, there's no reason to give him a platform just to repeat "I didn't do it."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
First of all, somebody editing while not logged in is not "announcing his IP". As I said, I don't think the rule is that you can out someone if it's obvious; the rule is you should not out editors, regardless of how obvious the facts may be. Regarding Bb223's comment: Minorview didn't repeat "I didn't do it." He made a factual claim about his IP that can be checked, and that is relevant if true. And his comment was actually a response to History2007's comment. Admins have this fascinating habit of accusing people of disruption for responding to what is said to them. History2007 showed up on the Talk page, made a comment about editing time, Minorview responded, and JamesBWatson revoked his access merely for responding. At this point Bb23's bias in this case is well-established, and he should recuse himself from further admin action. Strangesad (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a checkuser block. Any review must be by the checkusers or the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hopefully everyone has had their say now. Nothing is going to happen here today, so back to the salt mines with the lot of ya. — Ched : ? 03:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite the agreement of Peter Damian to stop all attempts to edit Wikipedia, he continued doing this. I noted this at User talk:Elen of the Roads#PD socking, reminding her of her earlier promise quoted above. The reply was a bit wishy-washy, but made it clear that she agreed basically that the agreement was now void. When further socking happened a few months later from User:86.169.241.160, I proceeded to restore the cats, user pages, and user talk pages, to make it easier to spot further socks and to clarify parts of the history behind this account for any newer or unaware editors (keeping also in mind the regular "let's unblock Peter Damian threads).
So now I wonder: a banned editor gets a courtesy blanking and deletion of most information relating to his socking, on the condition that he stops socking: he violates that agreement repeatedly; why should we keep "our" side of the bargain and keep relevant information hidden? We don't do the same for other long-term banned socks. Note, as a bonus, that a courtesy blanking and deletion was already done in 2008 when the editor exercised his "right to vanish". These deletions were also not undone, and most deletions of that user page are deleted as well. Socks from this time, like User:Renamed user 5, have been silently removed from the socks categories as well.
Why are some people, including members of ArbCom, going to all this trouble to "protect" the user name of this account (which, for clarity, isn't his real name), even when the user shows no interest in respecting his own promises in return? Why are tags and notices which are standard for all banned socks c.s. suddenly unacceptable in this case? Fram (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This is coming across as a bit petty and WP:DICKish, honestly. Courtesy blanking is just that; a courtesy that was extended to this person at the time. Later actions shouldn't be used as a reason to renege or rescind a courtesy, any more than one would demand gifts to be returned from a spouse once they become an ex-spouse. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
What an utterly bizarre argument. If he is continuing to sock (I've no idea if he is) then no such courtesy should apply, surely. The analogy with gifts to an ex-wife is just...unintelligable. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it suspected that Peter Damian is editing again? Giano 16:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
From my initial reading of Fram's post (and I of course wait to hear from everyone else involved before making a final decision) it appears that members of ArbCom have conspired to 'protect' a banned user who (perhaps) continues to sock, for some inexplicable reason. Fram, can you provide evidence of recent socking please? GiantSnowman 16:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I would strongly doubt that he is being allowed to edit again, under any name. From what I remember, he cooked his books and burnt his bridges very well and truly. The Arbcom would never be so foolish. Giano 16:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The "bizarre statement" is yours Paul B. What evidence do you have that Peter Damien is continuing to sock? None? MalleusFatuorum 16:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you can't read: "If he is continuing to sock (I've no idea if he is) then no such courtesy should apply, surely." What was bizarre was the "logic" of Fram's assertion. Whether PD is in fact socking is a separate question from what should be done if he is. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you can't understand what you read. MalleusFatuorum 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
My point should clear to anyone who is not choosing to ignore it. If you wish to make another "ya boo" comment go ahead. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks. Arguing with an idiot makes me the bigger idiot. MalleusFatuorum 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Elen's actions suggest that she has access to Torchwood software. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
@Paul B, it isn't rocket science; just because someone is rude to you doesn't give you an automatic right to be rude in return. Going back to a banned user's page and re-tagging it years after the fact was utterly pointless, it was of no benefit to the project. My analogy was sound, your lack of understanding is not a concern of mine. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Your analogy was nonsensical. My 'lack of understanding' is because it did not make sense. No-one is being rude to anyone. Providing information is the issue. It isn't rocket science. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It was not nonsensical or unintelligible, but your responses thus far have been just that. Let's try this real simple-like; 1) something courteous (blanking) was done for Damian. 2) Damian is alleged to have done something discourteous (socking) at some point later on. 3) Fram contends that that the original blanking was a sort of quid pro quo (that's, like, Latin, and stuff) now rendered null and void since one end was not upheld. 4) I feel that something done as a "courtesy" is not something that one usually takes back down the road, regardless of the actions of the other party...and if one does try to take such a thing back, it is somewhat of a dick move, hence the gift analogy. Now if you're done with the strawman (that's, like, logic, and stuff) retorts, maybe we can discuss the actual matter at hand. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Pointlesss, and a good indicator of one of Wikipedia's deepest problems; past indiscretions are never forgotten, or allowed to be laid to rest. MalleusFatuorum 17:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I seriously doubt there is an secret cabal of arbs and other admins that want to do nice things for Peter Damian or are protecting him. Tag warring over the content of banned user's pages is as tacky as it is pointless. WP:RBI, if there are any current socks at all, is a much better approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Can everyone please stop having little digs at one another? First things first, we need evidence of PD's socking - then we can discuss whether or not there has been any attempt to 'hide' it by those in a position of power. GiantSnowman 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters if there was socking or not. Re-tagging an old account as a "banned user" is simply Scarlet Letter-ish, to borrow a recently-used term for this. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't you mean gravedancing? - Who is John Galt?✉ 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The evidence of the continued socking? User:Hestiaea is one (e.g. [139] and User talk:Sue Gardner/5, where the editor claims to be writing a book about Wikipedia, something Damian is doing as well), and the IP User:86.169.241.160 self-identifies as Damian (using Damian's real name, which he had disclosed on Wikipedia earlier, so no outing here) here. There may be others (or not), these are just two that happened to cross my watchlist. Hestiaea is the kind of user that pretends to be a novice with innocent questions, wasting the time of editors, e.g. at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Fram (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Peter Damian is not writing that book alone, and in what sense is it "socking" if an IP reveals himself? Basically you have nothing but spiteful vengeance. MalleusFatuorum 19:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't claim that he was writing that book on his own; if an IP reveals itself, it is still socking by all definitions (you don't suddenly get permission to edit with an edit or account as long as you reveal which banned user you actually are); and vengeance for what actually? Anyway, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 116#Jagged 85 and Wikipedia accuracy has some more on Hestiaea, other IP socks, and Beeblebrox blocking the user. Fram (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not "socking" by any rational definition of that term if an IP chooses to reveal him or herself. What an absurd idea. MalleusFatuorum 00:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Call it "accounts and IPs used to evade a ban" if you prefer, it hardly changes anything about the fundamental issues. And the Hestiaea account clearly was socking even in your definition. Fram (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Fram,
Alleging that Damian be socking was a serious accusation. You have acknowledged the falseness of your unsubstantiated falsehoods. Please strike your falsehoods, here, and work toward more self-control when you make accusations.
In the future, you should stick to alleging "disruptive editing", which is so vague that another unsubstantiated accusation will probably not cause you any trouble. It's worked better for you in the past, hasn't it? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have not "acknowledged the falseness of my unsubstantiated falsehoods", but thanks for the redundant redundancy in your comment. I have acknowledged that Malleus' definition differs from mine (and most everyone's elses), and indicated that even with his definition, there are plenty of socks remaining. So, as requested, I have struck all my falsehoods in this section. Happy? Fram (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Peter Damian seems like a good guy from the little I've talked to him (which was his sock), but he did implicitly acknowledge elsewhere that the sock was him, but the evidence involves WP:OUTING. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
(Resp to Fram) If it's proven, then his past must be unhidden & he must have his new socks blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I've never witnessed so much apparently-clueless hypocrisy than I've just seen by reading this thread. If there's something everyone here should know by now, it's that people who want to edit the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" can't be stopped from doing so. Why anyone still cares is a mystery to me, I've long since stopped. If I left my front door wide open during the day, I shouldn't be surprised to come home and find my furniture gone and my beer supply reduced to empty bottles. - Who is John Galt?✉ 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we are worrying needlessly. I'm quite sure Peter Damian manages to edit as an IP, but I am equally sure he will never again edit as an accepted named editor. Such as it is, I would stake my Wikipedia reputation on it - his history prevents that. Giano 19:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
In otherwords, Wikipedia couldn't get rid of him, if it wanted to. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we want to get rid of people, per se, we just want to get rid of their endless egotistical fuckwittery. If PD was not such an attention whore, he'd be quietly editing away under a new account somewhere and nobody would mind at all. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
JzG (Guy), do you make such personal attacks all the time, or only when surrounded by AN hipocrites who don't enforce WP:NPA? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This is another aftershock of the recent Wikipediocracy controversy. Let's wish that people would just stop looking for trouble, especially if they don't identify their vendettas when they continue the drama. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please ask this user to back off a bit? He first made incorrect claims about me[140], and then went on to change the section header to a completely incorrect and accusatory one[141]. and edit warred over it with an uninvolved user[142]. He then continued to make the same claims at my talk page[143], despite nothing in this discussion supporting his claims.
When I reinstated the original section header here (because the section is about what happened to and what to do with PD socks and the tags on them, not about what to do with Peter Damian, which would be a different discussion; and because the section header was linked to in multiple wikilinks, now all broken), he reverted me again, accusing me of editwarring (considering that this was his second revert of the section header, a bit rich coming from him), calling me in the edit summary a "cowboy administrator", and claiming a "consensus" when all that was done was that one editor tried to find a middle ground, giving essentially in to the shenanigans of Kiefer Wolfowitz. I have no idea why I (and others) get such a hostile overreaction from KW in this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Fram,
You omitted your reverting Giant Snowman, in your edit warring, etc.
You hypocrites at this board have shown that you all let insults like "attention whore" stand, so forgive me for not consoling you at being called "cowboy".
What "false premise"? That you find it "sketchy" and "nearly or entirely pointless" is opinion, so while I don't agree, there is no need to explain those; but you seem to agree with KW that the section was based on a false premisse, even though he hasn't demonstrated any such thing; KW claims that no socking hsa occurred, which flies in the face of all evidence. But if he believes this to be true, instead of changing the section header and making some handwaving allegations, he should be taking the two sock cats to MfD, and try to get the SPIs about PD "corrected". Fram (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
What's this, Fram? You're upset when someone challenges allegations of socking? But on other occasions you're upset when someone raises concerns about socking by people that later turn out to be sharing accounts and sharing IPs? How does that work, then, Fram? Please tell us? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see the talk page of Fram for his insults to Carrite, etc. Would an honest conscientious administrator explain the duties of administrators, please? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
And the relevance of this to the section "Peter Damian socks" is...? Oh wait, of course, if I make a subsection about your actions in this very dispute, you can start a general section on unrelated stuff just becaues it involves me. Right... Start a new section or whatever you prefer if you feels this needs action, but don't hijack a different discussion to continue your WP:POINT violations please. Fram (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I tell you what, Fram.
You strike your insults to Carrite, and then you can begin to think about instructing me in manners.
Listen to Fram, mate, if you have a problem with Fram, go to his talk page and discuss your issue with him there, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.121 (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Because hypocrites don't enforce policy against other administrators or their familiars? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
What I'm saying is both of you calm down, take a time out, and then go back to this discussion rationally. 173.58.62.168 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Calm down? The thread was five days old before being poked by 173. Weird that it had not archived; bot is set for two days. NE Ent 00:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page, written in Turkish, has been nominated for speedy deletion. Could someone who speaks the language take a look please? ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 21:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
"Victims of Thermal Akkus and Hilal-profit web site waiting for the right to search for, and no one has been established" according to Google Translate. GiantSnowman 21:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a complete nonsense page would be deleted even if it were in English. Actually, deleted much faster if it were in English. Nothing for AN to discuss.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; it's gone. GiantSnowman 21:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I tend to be wary of Google Translate, especially when it comes to CSD, so thanks for dealing with it. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 22:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't have mattered if the content were brillant, articles written in other languages should either be translated or deleted. This is English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The only CSD category for deleting an article merely because it's in a foreign language is WP:CSD#A2, and it's pretty narrowly drawn.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Heh, lol, "Thermal akkus", nice Google translator garbage. It was a spam link promoting a criticism website against a company (which runs two sister businesses "Akkuş Termal" and "Hilal Termal"), accusing that company of some kind of fraud. Rightfully deleted as an attack page. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
French intelligence agency pressures uninvolved admin to delete file or face prosecution[edit]
the DCRI summoned a Wikipedia volunteer in their offices on April 4th. This volunteer, which was one of those having access to the tools that allow the deletion of pages, was forced to delete the article while in the DCRI offices, on the understanding that he would have been held in custody and prosecuted if he did not comply. Under pressure, he had no other choice than to delete the article, despite explaining to the DCRI this is not how Wikipedia works. He warned the other sysops that trying to undelete the article would engage their responsability before the law.
This volunteer had no link with that article, having never edited it and not even knowing of its existence before entering the DCRI offices. He was chosen and summoned because he was easily identifiable, given his regular promotional actions of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in France. — Christophe Henner, Wikimedia France
Just thought admins would be interested. 64.40.54.111 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I cannot do it myself, as it is protected. Please nominate {{Expert-subject}} for deletion on my behalf. Here's my rationale: "This template is useselss, as it fails to provide specific instructions on what needs to be done. Which articles don't need expert help? Even Featured ones can use it. I am an "expert" in sociology (a professor in a sociology department). How many of the WikiProject Sociology articles need attention from "experts"? IMHO, all of them, even the Featured ones. In fact, this is even more useless than the (now finally deleted} {{Expand}}. There one could argue it was of use for short articles. This one is so generic and wish-washy that I cannot even think of a single use where it couldn't be replaced by a more precise one, such as {{unreferenced}}, {{confusing}}, {{technical}}, and others, that actually tell the readers and editors what the problem is, other than calling for some vague expert to save the day." Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Support I couldn't have said it better. Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. If I remember rightly, it's officially best to make such requests by posting your message on the talk page with an {{editprotected}}. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
This user has already been warned and has been given references that disprove his repeat vandalism, yet they keep repeating the same vandalism on the Sonny Bill Williams page. This seems to be the only page they edit and vandalise. For this reason i am seeking a lengthy block of this user. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
ProXad? Sounds like some kind of open proxy service to me. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
As his user contributions here show [144], he is only vandalising 1 article with the same repetitive edits. So i think it's just 1 editor doing this.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Proxad is the company that runs free.fr, one of the fairly well known ISPs in France. This is a fixed IP in the Paris region. Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The user just repeated the same vandalism without even considering or discussing the ANI notice on their talk page.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but a highly inflammatory version of an article about the Buddhist organization Bodu Bala Sena keeps getting restored, even though several editors keep reverting back to a neutral consensus version. The contested version tries to insert things like "extremist" into the text and adds a wall of unvetted sources, "anti-Christian" and "anti-Muslim" categories, as well as a big red "Islamaphobia series" infobox (does WP allow such things?) Seems like Muslim/Buddhist tensions must be heating up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.79.166 (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee appointments (2013): Invitation to comment on candidates[edit]
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.
Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.
Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 28 April 2013.
For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion has run a full week, and I've closed as an acceptable unblock request. Kalki is indefinitely restricted to 1 (One account) until either the community or Arbcom release that restriction. The editor, the blocking admin., (who should have been notified at the opening of this request IMO), and the requester have been notified. Hopefully there will be no need to revisit this situation. Best to all — Ched : ? 21:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to unblock User:Kalki. Kalki has been indefblocked since October of 2010 for editing from an absurdly large number of accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalki/Archive). However, so far as I can tell he neither engaged in vandalism, nor used those accounts to vote multiple times in discussions (although I believe there may have been some occasions where he contributed to a discussion using two different accounts). It seems, rather, that Kalki's sockpuppetry was motivated primarily by a quixotic desire on his part to do good deeds without taking credit for them. Following Kalki's block here, he was desysopped at English Wikiquote for basically the same reasons, but was allowed to continue editing, although clearly limited to one account. In the intervening two years, Kalki has consistently been one of the top contributors to Wikiquote, both as a content creator and as a vandal fighter. Although he certainly has some quirks in terms of his editing preferences, and we have had strong disagreements on issues of style and page arrangement, it is clear to me that Wikiquote benefits from his involvement. I believe that Wikipedia would also benefit from Kalki being able to edit here, and I his generally good behavior on Wikiquote leaves me with no reason to believe that he would repeat the sockpuppetry that got him in trouble in the first place. Cheers! bd2412T 17:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be best if we heard something from them, like, do they even care or want to be unblocked. they appear to have talk page access and can appeal this themselves whenever they wish. Unless and until they do that I see no need for a community discussion of the matter. Indeed, after such a long time it would probably be a fairly simple matter for them to just get unblocked by promising to limit themselves to one account in the future.apparently that is not the case, but it would be a start anyway... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I notified Kalki of my proposal to unblock, and he certainly seems to want to be unblocked. I'll ask him to respond to your point. Cheers! bd2412T 19:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I would adamantly oppose an unblock, primarily on the basis of Kalki's behavior on Wikiquote, where he used multiple sockpuppets to essentially maintain single-handed control of that project. There was nothing there that was indicative of any desire to do good deeds without taking credit for it, Kalki routinely brought out the socks to back him up whenever another editor disagreed with him. His behavior, and unwillingness to compromise, drove me off that project before it was revealed that he was socking to an absurd extent - and it should be remembered that he was the sole bureaucrat there at the time.
Now, off-wiki behavior is not normally considered when determining on-Wiki decisions, but I feel that Kalki's behavior on Wikiquote must be taken into account, as it demonstrates that he is not beyond lying, deception, (that's what pretending to be someone else is) and misusing a Wiki for his own purposes. I see absolutely no reason why we should assume that this leopard has changed his spots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I've posted a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion on the Village Pump at en.wikiquote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Kalki has made a statement as to this proposal on his talk page. I agree that Kalki's behavior both here and on Wikiquote was bad, but that was several years ago. I believe that, his occasionally overwrought contributions to discussions aside, he has basically been rehabilitated. We can always unblock him now, and reimpose the block if he actually engages in improper behavior. bd2412T 21:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
You're assuming that any misbehavior would be under this account name, aren't you? But the basic problem with Kalki was his devious socking, and sockpuppetry does not come to light as easily as disruptive editing, and it is much easier for the master and the socks to argue against it, at least until a CU gets involved. Do we know that Kalki hasn't been socking since he's been blocked, has a CU run a scan? Has he taken responsibility for his malfeasance at Wikiquote, or, like DanielTom below, does he think that his blocking and desysoping there was "harrassment"?
It's not so easy to accept that someone has been "rehabilitated" when their misbehavior has been on the scale of Kalki's, who single-handedly controlled a Wikimedia Project for a long time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I have no objection to conditioning a removal of the block on a Checkuser review, both here and on Wikiquote. While I disagree with the assertion that Kalki's desysopping was "harassment", it has been abundantly clear since then that there is a single editor who was a strong advocate of that process, and who continues to take every opportunity to provoke Kalki. I must say, also, that I have been editing Wikiquote for eight years now, to the tune of over 65,000 edits, and although I have had numerous disagreements with Kalki over issues ranging from punctuation in citations to limitations on the number of quotes and images on a page, I have never felt like he controlled the outcome of those discussions. Despite his sockpuppetry (and his theoretical ability to overwhelm discussions with sockpuppet support) he was most often either on the losing side of the discussion, or on the side shared by a solid majority of the many editors who were not, and are not sockpuppets. In other words, Kalki did not, at any time that I witnessed, "maintain single-handed control of that project". bd2412T 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, our Wikiquote experiences differed, fair enough. I have no interest in continuing to "prosecute" this, I think it's quite obvious that I do not consider Kalki to be trustworthy, and feel that an unblock is unwarranted, especially since no really good reason has been given for one -- simply having been blocked for X amount of time is no reason that one should be unblocked, and the hyperbolic hosannas expressed by DanielTom below are less than creditable. I guess, if you do decide to go ahead, a CU clearance would be a minimum step. I'll back away now and let others have their say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. However, I must point out that my basis for proposing this is not merely that X amount of time has passed, but that during that time, Kalki has continued to be an effective contributor on Wikiquote. Cheers! bd2412T 00:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree on one point, namely that Kalki's behavior on Wikiquote must be taken into account, but that is exactly why I give my strongest possible SUPPORT to this proposal to unblock Kalki, and I commend bd2412 for bringing this up.
Sorry to say, but Beyond My Ken completely misrepresents what actually happened on Wikiquote, and his assertions about Kalki are simply FALSE. Even those who in the past persecuted (or, in my opinion, harassed) and quite improperly blocked him, could not find compelling evidence that he ever made abusive edits with any of his many other accounts, on any project, discounting one or two minor incidents which Kalki maintains to have been unintentional mistakes; now contrast that with the 90 000 constructive edits that Kalki has made overall, over the past 10 years, on Wikiquote alone, and you can get some perspective.
Just for the record, the Wikiquote policy doesn't actually forbid the use of other, secondary, accounts, except when they are used for vandalism, which is something that Kalki has NEVER done. (A Wikiquote sock puppet is another account belonging to a user, used for causing trouble, vandalism or as a way to get around Wikiquote's policies — based on that definition, I should even object to calling Kalki a "sockpuppeteer".)
Now, I urge you, let's please, please keep in mind here that we are talking about one of the most knowledgeable and capable users in existence either on Wikiquote or Wikipedia (as well as in other projects), whose positive contributions to said projects have been much greater than I could ever express here. I think that it should be crystal-clear to anyone not blinded by intolerance that Wikipedia is losing a very valuable editor indeed. Let's not make the same mistake again.
Speaking for myself, and with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, I once again urge everyone here to consider doing the proper thing, which is to unlock Kalki — who is, after all, one of the earliest and most precious editor we as a community have — and I sincerely hope that one day everyone will come to realize how privileged we are to have him and to work along side him, in our joint effort to improve Wikipedia. Thanks... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Note that DanielTom's account dates from last October, and he has 214 edits, and yet he knows that Kalki is "one of the earliest and most precious editor we as a community have" and is "one of the most knowledgeable and capable users in existence...whose positive contributions to said projects have been much greater than I could ever express here". This, I think, is called "damning with great praise." If I didn't have gobs of AGF all the way down to my bones, I would be a might suspicious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Those who wish to judge for themselves whether the removal of the sysop and bureaucrat flags from Kalki at en.Wikiquote was indeed "harrassment", as characterized by DanielTom above, should read Kalki's Vote of Confidence from their archive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I would NEVER have thought that the opinions of users should be discounted just because of their supposedly low edit count... Just so you know, even though I edit on several different projects, my main work is at Wikiquote, where I have nearly 2500 constructive edits (for what it's worth). I must leave now, so don't be offended if I don't have the time to respond to other silly attacks of this nature. Best wishes, DanielTom (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I actually went outside for a while but, as I waited a long time for the bus, I eventually realized what you are actually trying to imply (I missed it because of my naïveté), so I just came back to give you a heads-up. There is, in fact, no mystery here about what I know — I have read pretty much all the archived discussions at Wikiquote regarding this issue, and many others, so I think I am within my rights to express my opinion here about Kalki. NEVERTHELESS, if you are suggesting — "I would be a might suspicious" — that I am another sock puppet of Kalki , that is no accusation that you should make so lightly, and if you are to express it then I think you should go ahead and request that a Checkuser confirm it. This is not a joke. I should of course warn you that you must, however, be prepared to say that Kalki has been committing the grave crime of impersonating myself (Daniel Tomé) and, moreover, that he also knows Portuguese — which I am very doubtful that he does — so I would suggest that you actually take the time to analyse my contributions (such as the ones I made to Meta, where I have translated several pages to Portuguese) before you embarrass yourself further or, even worse, make such vicious accusations again. Thanks for your understanding, and I'm off again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a side discussion altogether, but while I have 2500 edits on Wikiquote, you have 11 edits there, so your argument is really quite self-defeating... ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock - This user is in my top rank of the untrustworthy here... a multiple sockmaster who abused our processes to push their viewpoints. Why invite a proven moral cheater back into the fold? Disturbing lack of common sense here, in my opinion. Jusdafax 00:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, again, my proposition is based on my experience with Kalki's continued positive contributions at Wikiquote. bd2412T 03:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you please show us the evidence that he ever abused our processes to push their viewpoints? As far as I know, you won't be able to find any such evidence, but it would be very enlightening indeed if you could. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. For the record, it strikes me as very odd that you should accuse those who have actually worked the longest with Kalki of lack of common sense, since it is they of all people who actually know him better and understand how unjust it is to keep him blocked. Despite the historical misrepresentations, as it all happened years ago, and given that, in the meantime (working with just one account), Kalki has continued to be one of the most valuable editors on Wikiquote, what truly strikes me as "lack of common sense" is saying that after all this time he still shouldn't be allowed to even edit here. Sincerely yours, DanielTom (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Kalki has been blocked for a long time, it seems to me that wp:offer should apply in this case. As long as we get a commitment that Kalki will now stick to one account I see no reason not to unblock. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. He's already agreed on his Talk page "to edit here under NO account other than the Kalki account". ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks for bringing up Wikipedia:Standard offer; the recommended "wait time" under that policy is six months; Kalki has remained silent for nearly two and a half years. As DanielTom indicates, Kalki has made a commitment to stick to one account. bd2412T 14:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Note that the standard offer is definitely not a policy, it is an essay. Fram (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No objection to unblocking. To the best of anyone's knowledge, Kalki has honored the commitment at Wikiquote to use only one account.
I think some ongoing difficulties at Wikiquote to which BD2412 alludes are quite serious, such as "overwrought contributions to discussions" that I would call highly abusive ad hominem attacks; and though having "controlled the outcome of those discussions" is not really at issue, tendentiously editing with strident disregard for the outcome of those discussions is a real issue. However, these issues are unrelated to the reason for which Kalki was blocked at Wikipedia, and I suspect Kalki recognizes it would be imprudent to attempt to do at Wikipedia everything one can get away with at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Kalki is a very dedicated contributor to Wikiquote, and from what I read, deserves a second chance here. -- Mdd (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Another baseless accusation. You should feel free to request a CheckUser search, Cirt, but either put up or shut up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's get the record straight.
The question "is DanielTom a sock of Kalki" is an extremely malicious one, not only because it is not based on any evidence, but also because it makes other good faith editors here doubt whether my praise of Kalki is genuine, and even suggests that Kalki is stupid enough to use a sock account in this very discussion.[145]
Now, as the question has been brought up twice now, in order to prevent it coming up again just to distort this discussion even further, I will assume good faith and show just how silly the suggestion that I am Kalki really is. Fortunately, it is very easy for any editor here to understand that I am not Kalki, because I never tried to hide my identity online (quite the opposite, as can be seen from my old profile at Wikiquote). Indeed, I shall do so, given that apparently the users who shamelessly and willingly accuse me of sock puppetry do not dare to request a CheckUser search.
So, here are the facts:
I first started editing on Wikiquote in August 2012 in the Bertrand Russell article, actually showing my IP (please see those contributions here). After a while, I registered the "Daniel Tomé" account (my name) but continued making contributions to the same Wikiquote article, as you can see in its article history.
If you still aren't convinced that my IP edits show that I am Portuguese, please check, e.g., the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia "Pedro Cosme Vieira" (which is obviously written in Portuguese). It was my brother (Diogo Tomé) who created that article, but he asked for my help to improve it, which I did, as you can see here. (Incidentally, the article is about one of my professors at the University of Porto.)
Recently, I changed my username to "DanielTom" because that is the name I have used online since 2007, as you can see here. I created that account on KGS, when I was 14 years old, with the very same email that I used to create this Wikipedia account. KGS is a Go server, where I am famous (meh) as "DanielTom". You can also check the many articles about Go that I ("DanielTom") wrote for GoSensations.com here (though I strongly advise against it since they are terrible literature). As I participated in the last WAGC, you even get to see my angry face here, if you are curious (though again, I do advise against it). I played there as the representative of Portugal, my country.
Now ask yourself, and try not to laugh: is Kalki the Portuguese Go Champion, Daniel Tomé (me), a 19 year-old economics college student from Portugal? This ridiculous accusation may appear hilarious to an outsider, but it is very insulting.
Really not cool. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
For the record, Cirt has requested that I be checked, which is great. Hopefully the results will be made public before too long; this joke has already gone too far as it is. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Basic facts: The investigation in 2009 was done crosswiki by checkusers trying to understand who was creating a huge number of accounts on numerous WMF wikis. After Kalki was identified as the primary account, En Wikiquote checkusers were notified.Wikiquote checkuers Aphaia contacted Kalki and eventually a vote of confidence happened on Wikiquote because Kalki had 'crat and admin tools. At the time I was a semi-regular editor on Wikiquote and learned of the problematic accounts from the discussion on the Checkuser mailing list. Since no one else was doing it, I decided to evaluate Kalki's edits to look for problems beyond having an absurdly large number of accounts. The results of my investigation are here. It was my view at the time that Kalki was very opinionated topic of discussion and content on Wikiquote and instead of persuading the community of the opinion by speaking with one account, they used numerous accounts to express their view. On some occasions Kalki spoke with more than one account in the same discussion and engaged in what is clear cut abuse of accounts, and on many other occasions Kalki edited article and talk pages using many accounts which would cause someone to believe that numerous people supported the content or point of view....a more subtle form of controlling content and policy. When these concerns we brought to Kalki's attention, Kalki first blamed Checkuser Aphaia for bringing the discussion to Wikiquote. So, while it is true that Cirt has taken close notice of the situation and repeatedly pushed for sanctions, the original investigation was carried out by impartial checkusers and editors who had no prior disputes with Kalki. At this late date, I have no concern with Kalki getting unblocked and abusing multiple accounts. But I want to go on the record to say that the problems came squarely from Kalki's refusal to resolve the problem back in 2008 and 2009 when asked to stop using multiple accounts and the checkusers were forced to go on site and make it a large community distraction. Several years later bd2412 encouraged Kalki to apologize to me for the work and trouble of sorting out this mess and Kalki commented on my talk page. I was satisfied that Kalki understood that using the multiple accounts was not completely benign and needed to be investigated although I don't think Kalki ever truly appreciated the magnitude of the disruption and work that these accounts created. But that alone is not a reason to leave Kalki blocked on Wikipedia. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, FloNight, for your thorough summary of the situation. As you have noted, I have worked to rehabilitate Kalki, and bring him to a greater level of self-awareness of the problems inherent to his conduct in that period. I think the situation can best be summed up with the observation that Kalki does not like the policy of prohibiting multiple accounts, but has come to conform his conduct to that policy. Cheers! bd2412T 02:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
bd2414, my reason for looking into the situation back in 2009 was to determine if Kalki put himself at an advantage over other people from using the other accounts. Based on that determination, I made my decision back then that Kalki should not be permitted to use more than one account. (Remember, Wikiquote did not have a policy that out right stopped all use of multiple accounts so there were questions as to whether having hundreds of accounts was allowed. Kalki certainly felt it should be permitted.) It has been over 4 years so I have to review my notes to remember exactly what problems that I found. Kalki had been editing since the earliest days of Wikiquote but I focused on the more recent years because that would be the best indication what his future conduct would be with the accounts if he was permitted to continue to use them.
Keep in mind that I did not examine all of Kalki's edits. I stopped looking at them when I found ample evidence that Kalki made deceptive comments that would cause someone to believe Kalki was more than one person in instances where it would really matter to someone looking at the comments. So that people here on Wikipedia understand that it was not just a use of clever accounts names to express his style, I point out that these instances on Wikiquote where Kalki used having multiple accounts to advantage himself and was deceptive. A lot of time has passed since then and to the best of my knowledge Kalki stopped using other accounts so I'm hopeful that your rehabilitation has worked and don't object to him getting a second chance. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The reason that I'm documenting the past problems here is because of Kalki's comment on his Wikipedia talk page. "I agree to edit here under NO account other than the Kalki account until such issues as might be involved can be openly resolved, and such restrictions removed. (bold is Kalki's). This seems to indicate that Kalki intends to seek to edit with more than one account at a later date. I would be opposed to it since I don't think that Kalki has ever acknowledged that he used the other accounts to mislead other editors. And his style of making long comments makes it difficult to wade through the text to review his edits so documenting it here for future reference. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
We could try an experiment like the "Mike Garcia" user test pulled a few years ago, and see how it goes, if Kalki becomes a good editor, then we could let them regain our trust, and if the same disruptive behavior resumes, then we can just re-block and leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.59.121 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Above it is said: "I think the situation can best be summed up with the observation that Kalki does not like the policy of prohibiting multiple accounts" This perhaps maybe the reason for a lack of consensus here. To put it colloquially: 'what's not to like?' Or more formally, what are the nature of the User's objections? (on a side note, it appears from the above that wikiquote has a different approach, so that experience may not be transferable) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a consensus yet — I'm trying not to be biased here — but, it seems to me, of all the users who have expressed their opinions thus far, even if based on misinformation, only three (3) have opposed the unblock (Beyond My Ken, Jusdafax and Cirt); on the other side, five (5) users currently support the unblock (bd2412, me, ϢereSpielChequers, Ningauble and Mdd), and this doesn't include the (3) other users who also appear to be inclined towards supporting (Beeblebrox, FloNight and 173.58.59.121). (Of course, the quality of the arguments should be more important than just the number of votes, but I think that's where we are at this point.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
With respect to those who object to lifting the ban on Kalki, I would like to know what conditions or circumstances would lead you to withdraw your objection. Do you think Kalki should never be allowed to edit Wikipedia again, no matter what? Or would you be satisfied with some degree of supervision, limitation, or the like? bd2412T 19:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
For myself, I would prefer that Kalki not be unblocked at this time, but if unblocking is going to come about anyway, then I believe it should be dependent on a clean CU scan for socks, and, more importantly, an acknowledgment from Kalki that allowing multiple accounts is dangerous to this project. Note that this is different from promising to edit with one account, which I understand he has already done; I'm looking for some hard evidence that he has been "rehabilitated", as you claim. For me, "rehabilitation" would be the indication that he knows and understands the purpose of the sockpuppetry policy. Without that acknowledgement, I don't believe it is a good idea to return the franchise to him, since the temptation to sock will always be there with him.
While this may seem harsh, I believe it is justified by Kalki's previous actions on Wikiquote and his socking here as well. Looking at FloNight's list of Kalki's alternate accounts and the way in which he used them brought back to me the seriousness of his transgression. I think that completely justifies continuing the block, but as others feel differently, as least the two provisions above should be considered to protect the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Kalki did agree to a Checkuser review, one week ago, but the request was declined.[146][147][148] And let's keep in mind that those "incidents" took place two and a half years ago. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
As to your second and final "provision", we have to wait and see what Kalki has to say, but, to me, what's relevant is that he has already agreed to edit here under just one account; the rest should be up to him. For instance, I myself disagree with a number of Wikipedia policies, but so what? You probably also dislike a few policies yourself, but that doesn't mean that you should be blocked, in my opinion. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
There is, of course, a distinct difference between being blocked for disagreeing with a Wikipedia policy -- which should never happen -- and not being unblocked (after egregiously violating a Wikipedia policy multiple times) because one continues to think that the policy one was blocked under is a bad idea. If one is tried and convicted for breaking a particular law, it's not unreasonable for a parole board to ask whether you agree that the law is necessary, not just that you won't break the law (which is the minimum requirement for getting out). "I won't sock" is fine, but not, in my opinion, a sufficient guarantee of good behavior. "I agree that socking is bad" is at least an indication that Kalki perhaps gets it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
For some reason, User:DanielTom insists on the comment above being in small type. My experience is that small type is reserved for "asides" -- frequently humorous -- that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, or for announcements of where notices have been placed publicizing the discussion; even then, because small type is difficult to read, the comment is generally bolded for more ease of reading. Anyway, since my attempts to restore the comment to the generally used format have been reverted, here is what DT said, to which my comment above was a response:
"As to your second and final "provision", we have to wait and see what Kalki has to say, but, to me, what's relevant is that he has already agreed to edit here under just one account; the rest should be up to him. For instance, I myself disagree with a number of Wikipedia policies, but so what? You probably also dislike a few policies yourself, but that doesn't mean that you should be blocked, in my opinion."
Incidentally, while refactoring other editor's comments is generally frowned on, WP:TPO gives as a legitimate reason for refactoring:
Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
I can't believe you made such a long "aside" comment about the format and didn't type it small. If you wanted to explain to me why the format I chose was incorrect, you should have used my Talk page, instead of trying to distract other users with that here. Anyway. I used "small" myself to make it clear that my comment was also an aside, but apparently it failed because that still didn't prevent you from completely blowing things out of proportion yet again. Let's try and stay focused here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
For those who cannot read it:
I can't believe you made such a long "aside" comment about the format and didn't type it small. If you wanted to explain to me why the format I chose was incorrect, you should have used my Talk page, instead of trying to distract other users with that here. Anyway. I used "small" myself to make it clear that my comment was also an aside, but apparently it failed because that still didn't prevent you from completely blowing things out of proportion yet again. Let's try and stay focused here.
Of course I am willing to acknowledge that "Sockpuppetry" (meaning the use of alternate accounts in devious ways expressly forbidden by Wikipeda policies) is not merely "dangerous" but actually DETRIMENTAL to the project
He goes on to say that he never had any malicious intent. (The post is rather long, you can read it yourself.) In any case, Kalki very clearly states:
I repeat that I have ALSO consented to NOT edit from ANY other account than the Kalki account, without official authorization, and IF I am ever interested in editing from any others I will OPENLY request the ability to do so, and IF that permission is granted, I will be willing to inform checkusers of ANY alternate account I thus use.
I believe your second condition has just been satisfied. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I am certainly willing to work towards any reasonable compromise position on this matter. Obviously, there are some editors who maintain a deep distrust for Kalki. I have no doubt that if my proposal is agreed to, Kalki will be closely watched by those who doubt him. In the interests of moving forward, would those who object to unblocking be inclined to allow Kalki to first be unblocked for a brief probationary period, perhaps 30 days or 60 days? bd2412T 14:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This was opened on March 30, a full week ago. I'll have a read through all this and attempt to determine a consensus. If nobody else has closed or resolved it by the time I'm done, I'll post my thoughts/results then. — Ched : ? 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support
bd2412
ϢereSpielChequers
DanielTom
Mdd
Oppose
Cirt
Jusdafax
Beyond My Ken
Commenting
Beeblebrox
Ningauble (possible leaning support per However, these issues are unrelated to the reason for which Kalki was blocked at Wikipedia, and I suspect Kalki recognizes it would be imprudent to attempt to do at Wikipedia everything one can get away with at Wikiquote)
FloNight (listed detailed research on history of the situation) (But that alone is not a reason to leave Kalki blocked on Wikipedia and to the best of my knowledge Kalki stopped using other accounts so I'm hopeful that your rehabilitation has worked and don't object to him getting a second chance. (April 3, 20:52), but later says: This seems to indicate that Kalki intends to seek to edit with more than one account at a later date. I would be opposed to it since I don't think that Kalki has ever acknowledged that he used the other accounts to mislead other editors. (April 4 13:18) So I conclude her feelings to be leaning oppose, possibly outright oppose.)
IP 173.58.59.121 (leaning support)
Fram (notes wp:so is an essay)
Closing comments;
This is one of those times where a larger number of editors may have yielded a stronger consensus. I read this as 4-supports, 3-4-opposes (judged upon Flonight's most recent post), and 2 leaning support, (including 1 IP). While neither the blocking or banning policies state what a "default" consensus is, typically an editing state is one of being able to edit. I also believe that our community is one that is open to giving editors a second chance, and I am aware that any returning editor is under great scrutiny for some time. So, I am going to close this as an unblock request that has been (barely) granted, and will be taking care of that next. — Ched : ? 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I meant to come back here and comment, but I forgot. I'm generally a supporter of giving people a new chance to prove themselves, especially after such a long break - re-blocking is easy. So please consider this a late support for unblocking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
That does make me feel a little bit better, and I'm glad I saw this before actually clicking the button - I'll go notify the blocking admin. next. — Ched : ? 20:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ched, I have a small disagreement — not that it really matters as you've made the right decision anyway, which was to unblock Kalki — namely that, as I see it, your assessment of Ningauble's comment is slightly incorrect. Indeed, it seems to me that you, perhaps unintentionally, chose to highlight the less important parts of his comment (which were actually, for the most part, related to Kalki's use of pictures at Wikiquote), and ignore what he, Ningauble, wrote very clearly at the beginning: No objection to unblocking. That, to me, sounds like not just "possible leaning support", but an actual vote of support (and I'm sure he can confirm that if you ask him). Anyway, please don't see this comment as a negative one; your overall reading was, in my opinion, proper and correct. My truest thanks, DanielTom (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, after Boing's vote of support, you can pretty much ignore my last comment, as it doesn't really make much difference. Best, DanielTom (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thread closing comment: Hi Daniel, thanks for your view, and I'll note your objections. Anytime I read a "However" in anything, that leads me to believe that an editor sees two sides to a situation, and is making that known; hence my "leaning" reading of that post. I do understand your view though - and thank you for pointing that out. — Ched : ? 21:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for posting after the close, but I think the last minute remarks about and interpretations of my post deserve some clarification. (1) My !vote of "no objection", like a plea of nolo contendere, is different from a simple yes or no; and the closer's reading of it is very reasonable for assessing the weight of the arguments. (2) Regarding the allegedly "less important parts" of my comment: I would not have included them, and said I thought them "quite serious", had I not thought them important; and it is up to the closer to consider any argument presented to show why the matter is unimportant. (3) DanielTom is incorrect in asserting that my remarks relate primarily to (recent) contention over the WQ:IMAGE policy. I referred to "ongoing difficulties" because Kalki has long exhibited the described patterns of conduct in disputes about several other policies and guidelines. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Yasheng Group and Silk Route Museum articles have no notability at all, and no reliable secondary sources at all. When this was pointed out at talk, the page was blanked, and massive content added. The companies have been involved in allegations of securities fraud on fraud notice websites. This is not a matter for Wikipedia editors to sort out. We just cite reliable secondary sources, or disallow the material. But the material keeps being added, in violation of WP:RS and WP:V. See discussion here - [149]— Preceding unsigned comment added by KatieBoundary (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This is already up for discussion at ANI - at the very thread you link. Your arguments should be posted there, as coming here for more eyes looks very much like forum-shopping. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 18:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Its my first time posting such a notice. KatieBoundary (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
For some time now, I've noticed that WP:AIV functions badly, there is almost always a backlog. As AIV is only for obvious cases of vandalism, it should not take long to decide to block or decline to block. Yet we often see a backlog of several hours, during which the typical vandal can continue to perform quite a high number of disruptive edits. This time it's about a rather silly IP-vandal [150] who insists on placing a POV-tag at Switzerland with no other argument than "I don't trust the Swiss" or "The Swiss are dangerous", but the same thing goes for all vandals. It's tedious to keep reverting them when they immediately restore their vandalism.
I know, and reject, the argument that a delay of few hours isn't that big a deal. If it concerned only one or two articles, or one or two vandals, that might be true. But when we have a constant backlog at AIV, and many vandals either are very persistent or target many articles in rapid succession, and usually quite visible articles, it means that we will have a permanent state of vandalized articles, damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. AIV is in need of some serious rethinking.Jeppiz (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
As one of the more active admins at AIV, I don't think it is true that there is often a backlog of several hours. Most reports get cleared within a matter of minutes (including the example you give above). The reports that linger for longer than that are generally ones which are not obvious vandalism and many of those eventually get declined. They are often not immediately declined in order to give other administrators a chance to review it (each admin has different experiences and may be able to recognize a non-obvious vandal that others might not recognize). -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Second this. Most of the time something is up for more than a few minutes it's because a sysop has reviewed it and not felt it worthy of an clear and obvious block. Often times another will come along and disagree, but those that linger are usually eventually declined. Sometimes if it looks like a report may be on the fence, the report can stay up in a "enough rope to hang yourself" sort of fashion, erring on the side of caution but keeping many, many eyes on activity. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 15:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Another problem is that the helperbots are often down; they haven't edited the page in the last fifteen hours today, for example. If the bots always worked properly, names of blocked users would be removed a lot sooner, and the board would appear to be less backlogged. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I wonder how much vandalism could be reduced by allowing Cluebot NG to edit war with vandals it currently only reverts once ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Ed and Amory, you may very well be right; you most likely are. Most of us only see the cases we report ourselves, or the one on the site when we go there to report. We usually don't see the cases that are swiftly taken care of, so it's entirely possible that I've overestimated the problem. Thank you for your corrections!Jeppiz (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of identical report at ANI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the two recent months a mass sockpuppetry has disturbed the article Nicolaus Copernicus to disturb three years of a quiet consensus [151]
User:207.112.105.233 and User:70.28.16.8 from Toronto disturb the talk page. From the language it's an obvious sockpuppet of User:Serafin and the IP betrayed itself [152]
User:Astronomer28 is a single-purpose account raised in 2008 to help User:Nihil novi, who sockpuppeted years before as Logologist on the same article.[153] Astronomer28 was suspected in his first appearance in 2008 [154] but his new sockpuppetry is apparently technically improved since Logologist's earlier puppets. Five years later Astronomer28 came back to revert reliably for Nihil novi every single time and for him alone. He was warned about an indefinite block for any further revert before having a consensus but being a throwaway account ignored it.[155]
User:Mieszko 8 is a single-purpose account caught and blocked for sockpuppeting.[156] During the block, he continued sockpuppeting [157] and is now back for more reverting. --89.204.155.98 (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ain't no saints here. Neither AN nor ANI are well suited to discussions of chronic and/or aggegrate behavior. This thread is not particulary well focused, mixing concerns about Personal Attacks (by multiple parties) and CSD activity. Furthermore divergent opinions by established editors indicate there is not a clear consensus the CSDs are blantantly incorrect. Editors who feel sanctions should be taken against the named user, the original poster, or any other editor should do the necessary work to start a well documented RFC/U NE Ent 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am involved with User:KumiokoCleanStart (the newest incarnation of User:Kumioko), so I am not permitted to act directly on the following issues. If someone can instruct him on those two issues or take other necessary action, I would be much obliged. Fram (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
After this comment[158], he was asked by User:LWG to stop attacking editors[159]. He answered "BMK is a menace to the project, a bully and an immature child."[160]. Fram (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
To give context, before the comments which resulted in the warning detailed above, KCS posted this comment on my talk page:
I was hoping that one of the admins would say something but since they haven't, I will. Hey Ken, how about not acting like an ass every chance you get. There are no less than three discussions on this page about your unnecessarily rude comments. I would submit a suggestion to ANI or somewhere else but you and I both know that those venues are next to worthless and that is why you can continue to be rude and act like an asshole to every editor you don't agree with. Normally I would try and start of nice before being so blunt, however I neither have the time nor do I think you would listen the nice way anyway. So how about this. Knock off the assholery, try and be at least somewhat courteous to your fellow editors and not be so rude to everyone. It really is baffling to me how you are allowed to continue to act this way without not so much as a cool it from the admins who are supposedly trusted to keep this shit down to a minimum. [161]
We have a history, and there is no love lost between us, so it is unclear to me why KCS thought it was a good idea to offer me advice, especially when expressed in such a manner, and I responded in kind:
Hey, KCS, how about editing some articles, and stop putting your nose in where it has no business being? You've only been editing since March 26, yet you've racked up 675 edits, which would be good, except that only 74 of them (15.55%) are to articles -- that's barely more than your edits to your own user page (61 edits, 12.82%). What you've been doing since you were allowed to return to editing (a mistake, I thought, considering your history) is stirring pots, moaning, complaining, and spreading negativity, the same kind of thing you were doing before your "retirement". I'm astounded that you think I would accept advice from you, and that I would think that you, a free-loader who doesn't pull his weight here, has anything to offer me. Kindly remove your nose, stop your bitching and go edit some fucking articles. [162]
I did not seek out any confrontation with KCS, he brought it to me, and then got upset (apparently) when I wouldn't allow him to continue his attacks and deleted his subsquent comments from my page, which is, of course, well within my purview. I stand by my analysis of the quality of KCS's "contributions", and by my right to remove unpleasant crap from my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
First let me address this nonsense. If Ken would start talking to other users with some manners and not being so rude and acting like a bully there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. As it is Ken is seemingly incapable or unwilling to do that so I simply treated him as he treats others. Not very gentlemanly of me I agree but I don't think for a second Ken would have listened the nice way either. Fram is very much the same in that regard so comments about me being rude are pretty useless and baseless from either of them. Ken has a long history of being rude and incivil to users outside just me. Its about time that the admins started doing something about his conduct instead of dismissing it. You didn't like my comments, fine, here are some from him to me leading up to it: [163]. There are lots of others but you can did through his history yourself. Most users who are familiar with him knows how he is. This is not a new problem.
Here is an early comment by me AFTER Brad starting being his usual rude self to some other users before I started being rude back. It should also be noted that there are no less than three discussions on his talk page right now, about his conduct and actions.: [164], [165]
So when he wants to start acting like a civilized human I'll start treating him like one. I also find it rather problematic that he removes large chunks of the discussion so that it makes it extremely hard to see the whole thing in context. So unless Ken can start being civil don't expect me to treat him as anything other than a nuisance. Kumioko (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a great deal of irony in your attempting to use Ken's rebuttal to your being an asshole as an example of him being an asshole. Resolute 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree and I have to admit a certain amount of irony is intended. I do think that a lot of time is being spent analyzing the problem of me and not enough being devoted to the root cause which is Ken's actions and interactions with other users. Its fair to say I am being an asshole to him and I quite agree. What I do want to make clear is that is not my general demeanor. I do not however desire to be a perfect gentleman when the editor is being an ass. Kumioko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
That this is apparently not your general demeanor is news to me, and certainly not representative of my experiences with you. And I will freely admit that colours my viewpoints on this. Nobody takes the pot seriously when it calls the kettle black. I agree with others - you can't effectively highlight supposedly bad behaviour in others by acting the same. Resolute 15:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"What a joke. Clearly an attack on me from one of Wikipedia's biggest bullies. Of course I'll probably be the one that get's blocked because the admins here would rather block the last one to comment and not the root of the problem so I just want to leave this comment here first." Kumioko's response to the AN notification (required) by Fram. That's not acceptable. WP:CIVIL applies to everyone at all times, regardless of why or where or when or how or to whom you are being uncivil. Just letting people know since that comment wasn't brought up here. gwickwiretalkediting 14:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Making no comment on whether BeyondMyKen does in fact have a history of incivility, Kumioko's behavior in the incident I was involved in was totally unacceptable. In the series of edits beginning [here], I left a polite note on BMK's page requesting that he change his behavior in another discussion, which was a rather minor issue and a normal part of the collaborative process. Kumioko then showed up uninvited to pile on a series of increasingly incivil and accusatory messages, none of which contributed anything to our discussion. When BeyondMyKen removed Kumioko's messages (which he has the right to do), Kumioko became angry and continued his diatribe. Reading the comments here, Kumioko's attitude that he need not be civil until civility is showed him is also unacceptable and completely contrary to how we actually operate here. If someone is rude to you, you are more obligated to be polite back to them, not less. -- LWGtalk 15:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
@Resolute. When you make nasty comments to me don't expect me to be nice back. Our interactions have been negative because you make them that way.
@gwickwire, Your right my response was unacceptable but the fact that this ANI has continued on as long as it has without anyone even bothering to look into Fram's conduct recently or BeyondMyKen's is just further evidence of why I said it. because some members of the community pick and choose when to enforce policy. Fram is a bully and so is BMK, I called them on it in no uncertain terms. You don't like my comments, fine. Go look at the history of BMK's talk page and see the comments he said to me and then we'll talk.
@LWG, your right I did sau some mean things to BMK but your refusal to allow those to be discussed isn't fair. BMK told me at the same time to fuck off so its pretty unrealistic to expect me to say thank you Sir may I have another. Ken is a bully and treats other editors like trash. All you need to do is read through his comments in his contributions. Look outside the comments between us. Look at how he interacts with others if your not already familiar. The reason I am so rude to Fram and BMK is because I am sick and tired of bullies like these 2 to operate on this site and ruin the experience for everyone. But I am the asshole here because I called them out. No one cares that Fram is copy pasting material because that's ok (no its lazy writing), no one cares that he is singling out editors one at a time (because he's an admin that's ok), no one cares that editors like Fram and BMK are bullies and are driving off potential editors with their shananigans. Fram opened up this ANI to get even with me for calling him out and telling him a bully and hurting his feelings. What makes me even more irritated is that so many are taking this ANI seriously instead of dismissing it as the waste of time it is. Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, please don't think I'm trying to be one sided here. I was just bringing it to the attention (as nobody had yet). I make no judgement on BMKs actions, as I don't feel I have the time to thoroughly go through his comments to make a comment thereof. If what you say is true, we need to be discussing his actions as much as yours if not more. I understand that (hell, it's happened to me before) when things get heated, everyone loses sight of civility. If that's the case, maybe nothing should come of it. But I'd need time to determine that, as I'm sure everyone else does on BMK's side. Thanks for the explanation by the way. gwickwiretalkediting 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
If Fram told me water was wet I would have to feel it for myself to be sure. I don't trust him anymore than he trusts me. The difference is when he is brought to ANI people shut it down and dismiss it. When he brings people up (presumably because he's an admin) then people start talking about it being a serious problem. He is playing the crowd and the crowd isn't seeing it. Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"BMK told me at the same time to fuck off so its pretty unrealistic to expect me to say thank you Sir may I have another" - I absolutely do expect you to remain civil no matter what BMK says or has said to you. If you are incapable of doing so, you should not engage in discussions on his talk page. You were not asked to join the discussion I was having with him, and it had nothing to do with you, so given that you have existing conflict with BMK you should have stayed out of it. -- LWGtalk 17:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if I was asked to join the discussion. I was there to comment about comments and actions by Ken towards another user and saw that discussion. There is no rule that says that I cannot comment. I also find it a little irritating that you make no mention of the comments that Ken made towards me or other users on his page. So maybe until you understand the root of the problem, which is Ken's behavior towards other users (not counting me) then perhaps it is you that should stick to your discussion. Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Less urgent, but also problematic, is his speedy tagging, which is very, very often completely incorrect (sometimes because the page doesn't need speedy deleting, more often because he uses totally incorrect templates). Also worrying is that a number of admins seem to blindly accept these (examples of those in his deleted contributions, e.g. 316th division or 19th Colors Screen Awards).
Examples from the last few days:
tagging a perfectly understandable page about a pioneer company as A1 (insufficient context) an G2 (test page): [166]
tagging an elementary school as A7 (which isn't valid on schools) and G6 (maintenance!)[167]
This was at least an applicable tag (A7 for a person), but the page had more than enough claims to importance to at least warrant an AfD (which it would easily survive).
Tagging a college page as A1 and G2[169] for no obvious reasons (it may need checking for copyvio, but that's a different issue)
An A7 (and obligatory G2) for a winner of a Mélies d'Or award and a comics creator published in translation at Dark Horse Comics[170]
Just for the record, I do not accept the characterisation of my deletion of 19th Colors Screen Awards as "blind acceptance". There isn't sufficient context supplied in the body of the article to describe to a basic standard what it is. A first-time reader who comes across that would have no idea what was being described. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Strange, I was a first time reader when compiling the above, and it was pretty clear that ther were the 19th instance of some Bollywood Awards. The infobox linked to the general article about the awards anyway. And why did you also delete it as a G2 test page? This wasn't a test page at all. Fram (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you about G2. That was a mistake, and I will undelete and redelete with the correct rationale. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 09:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need for such extreme pedantry myself. If I see a CSD incorrectly tagged but think it fits one of the criteria anyway, I just change the criteria and delete - but if I occasionally forget to remove one ineligible reason, then I really don't think that's any great tragedy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The context CSD is not a quality-control mechanism. It is not eligible if the context can be ascertained by the editor. This isn't even a borderline case, Basalisk. In this case the 316th is a "Division of the Vietminh which fought in the battle of Dien Bien PhuSee." You have the name and the description. What more could you want? See this revision of the CSD. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
MQ - the article you're talking about was not deleted by me, and I'll leave it up to the admin who did delete it to comment as that's most appropriate. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 10:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what I was thinking. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This is another ridiculous submission by Fram clearly attacking me because we have history. This whole request should be speedy closed and someone should tell Fram to quite wasting everyone's time. Its true I applied for RFA twice whats worse is that Fram applied and got it. Truly appalling. Back to the point. I submitted some articles for deletion that didn't appear to meet our requirements, I still don't think so. Many were poorly written, didn't meet consensus, where written in a foreign language, etc. There have been between 8 and 9000 pages pending review in the last month. Fram doesn't mention that I reviewed about 300 amidst the ones I submitted to CSD. Fram is trying to get me blocked or in trouble because I have been critical of his poor editing style and manners on wiki. He and Ken (mentioned above) are both bullies. They leave rude comments, act poorly to other users and are as I put on Ken's page and mentioned above, a menace Its editors and admins like this that have caused the culture in wikipedia to become so toxic. You don't like my comments? Fine, then start performing your admin roles and blocking some of these characters and I won't feel like I have to comment at all because things are being taken care of. So now with that said I expect to be blocked, these 2 knuckleheads will get a pat on the back and told how I victimized them and everyone can continue enabling Fram and Ken) to continue to degrade our online editing culture and abusing other editors. Kumioko (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
On the speedy tagging thing, if you think Kumioko has made a mistake then why not just explain it politely on his talk page? Several people have already done that and have received positive and friendly replies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I should also add that though there might have been a few minor mistakes, Kumioko's CSD error rate seems quite low to me - and what mistakes I've seen have been clearly good-faith. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
A few? The above were only examples, I can provide some more if you like. As for friendly responses, I have received too many personal attacks from Kumioko to be interested to go to his talk page anymore. Once I noticed that despite other comments about declined speedies, he continued tagging with a way-too-high error rate, I brought it here for more attention. This is not some clueless newbie, but an experienced editor. Just look at the number of "G2" and "G6" tags he uses. You deleted Rehman Siddiq, as A7 (correct). Kumioko also tagged this as G11 (which it wasn't) and G6 (non controversial maintenance). For the last one, he gave as reason "because Written by subject of article". Or take e.g. Lives and portraits of all the presidents from Washington to Grant, tagged as "A1" and (of course) G2, and deleted for those two reasons as well (which is not Kumioko's error but that of the deleting admin). The article started with "This is a 72 page pamphlet by Author, Duffey, John B in 1876. It was given a review on March 11, 1876 in "The Publishers Weekly"." Clearly not a candidate for either A1 or G2. Fram (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of interest Boing!, what do you consider an 'acceptable' error %? Generally in most situations where work is being audited, 1% is considered 'too high' but may be passed as long as there is active attempt to reduce it. If your sample size is something like 10 edits then the % is going to be at least 10%. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative environment, it shouldnt need that level of *required* auditing to make sure people arnt making mistakes. Once you are looking at a range of edits, if you find four or five in a short period, thats an unacceptable level of mistakes. However to confirm its actually an unacceptable error rate, and not a minor aberration, you need to radically increase your sample size. And no one wants to have to go over another person's edits to that level of detail, its time-consuming and not productive. The alternative is just saying 'ah who cares' and not worry about it. Which when you have already identified there may be a problem - well ignoring the problem doesnt make it go away. It would annoy me, which is why I dont go looking for errors like that. But someone has to. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it makes any sense at all to try to affix specific percentages to such things, as hard-and-fast quantifiable rules really don't work very well. There are qualitative aspects that are also relevant, such as the degree of error (eg whether a mistagged article is actually deletable), the potential harm done (eg is a newbie being unfairly bitten?), and the response of the tagger when addressed (are they civil and willing to listen?) I'm certainly not saying ignore it - I'm saying don't come complaining at AN if you're not prepared to try talking first - and civil discussion on Kumioko's talk page appears to be taken well. I just don't see anything that requires admin action here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec)First, I stand behind that the articles I submitted were mostly crap. Whether I did or didn't use the right CSD code is pretty much irrelevent to the status of the article. If Fram wants to argue that an article written by the individual about the individual or their work doesn't violate our rules of COI then I guess he can.
In response to the comments about personal attacks. If Fram left me a civil comment I would respond in a civil manner. Since he fails to do so I haven't done anything Fram hasn't done to me. I simply don't cater to his bullshit and return the favor. Not the gentlemanly thing to do perhaps, but I have tried dealing with him the nice way and he refuses to address his own errors and problems. I'm just tired of putting up with his shenanigans to weasel around the processes and policy that has been put in place because he is cunning and crafty enought to work around them without anyone stopping him. I've seen editors like him come and go over the years, they show up, bully and throw their weight around, get the tools, get even more aggressive and eventually after people get fed up with it enough they start to take action. But that's after a lot of drama and damage to the project (at least from a civil or credibility standpoint). Fram has been pandered too by plenty of editors and I have tried to AGF for a very long time. Its only in the last few months that I stopped treated him with kid gloves because I got tired of his garbage.
As for CSD, I would also argue that CSD and its rules are subjective as are the premise of notability. One editor may think all Football/soccer players are notable, another may not. That's why its a 2 party process. One submits it and someone else reviews it. Even if the reviewer was an admin, most of the time they don't just outwardly delete the article themselves. They submit it and let someone else delete it so there is a secondary review process. Again though, you need to look at it in context. I actually tagged a lot of articles reviewed that I feel fail notability, lack context, references, categories, etc. If not CSD many would probably not survive AFD. Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Not to be the biggest of pedants, but the criteria for speedy deletion don't actually include "lack of notability"; the A7 bar is deliberately lower than notability. "It wouldn't survive an AfD" is also not a criterion for speedy deletion, as again, the bar for speedy deletions is deliberately lower than AfD, since there's less oversight and community input. It is subjective, yes, and reasonable differences and honest misjudgments happen, but are you sure you're aiming for the right target? Writ Keeper⚇♔ 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: "One editor may think all Football/soccer players are notable, another may not." - If you truly believe that, then you must also know that tagging such articles for speedy deletion is most certainly the wrong thing to do. As Writ Keeper notes, disagreeing on the notability of a subject is not the same thing as a failure to assert notability, which is what A7 requires. Speedy deletion is for obvious and hopeless cases, not for trying to sneak borderline cases or those for which you personally disagree on the hopes you can find a like-minded admin. I think you should spend some time learning the purpose of CSD before resuming activity in this area. Resolute 14:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually notability is a fairly signifant reason for CSD, considering that twinkle itself has no less than 5 criteria to check if aplicable dealing with notability (such as a person, club, organization, etc.). But perhaps I gave a bad example. Many of the ones I marked for CSD were for articles that were obvious advertising, some were written by the individual the subject was about. Some were written in a foreign language, some were just garbage. The fact remains, there are over 8000 articles pending review, thousands of user accounts and user created subpage that could be reviewed. Not even counting other namespaces like templates and categories. I may or may not get 100% right, its subjective as I said before. I think there crap so I tag them, others may agree or disagree and that's fine. But this particular ANI is still baseless and amounts to nothing more than another attack page by Fram. Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Not an ANI report. My76Strat (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Read those CSD tags again, Kumioko: those A7 criteria do not mention notability. Instead, they talk about "importance" or "significance". This is not just avoiding wikijargon, this is a different, less strict concept. (As evidence, look at the sentence in WP:CSD#A7: "This [significance or importance] is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." (bracket and emphasis mine) Writ Keeper⚇♔ 15:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I should clarify this again. I submitted some under what I felt are the right criteria. If they aren't notable, unimportant or insignificant the meaning is really the same. Its just symantics. But I still return to the root problem. This ANI is a waste of time. It was submitted by Fram to attack me because he feels I have been attacking him. Its clear to me at this point that no one really cares about the nasty comments that BMK made and I don't think anyone has even bothered to look. All you want is a good hangin'. So ok go ahead and do whatever you feel like. When you are serious about dealing with problem editors like Fram and BMK that routinely attack and bully other users and want to help turn the toxic culture of this place around and make it a better editing experience where these problem editors aren't welcome then let me know. Until then I have better things to do than to continue to participate in a discussion where the commentors haven't even bothered to look into the story. If you have adirect question or comment just leave it on my talk page when you block me. Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You realize you are doing considerably more attacking and bullying in this thread than those you claim to be doing the attacking and bullying right? -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Your right, but this whole discussion is a joke and yes its pissing me off. No one here cares about Fram or Ken's conduct. That's apparent. Its endemic to the greater problems of Wikipedia these days. Shortsithedness and a general failure of the editors involved to perform due diligence before making a decision and shortsightedness on how actions will reflect future behavior. I fully understand I may be blocked, but if that's the only way to draw attention to Fram and BeyondMyKen then so be it. It doesn't appear as though the community cares about the activities anyway. Nothing but comments here about me without even taking the time to review the source. Typical! Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Folks, I've just come back for a look at this section, and quite frankly, I'm saddened at the bad faith being shown towards Kumioko here. I've looked over a number of Kumioko's CSD taggings, and they're clearly all done in good faith on articles with definite problems - the majority of which I think really should be deleted by one route or another. Sure, there are some category mistakes, but a look at Kumioko's talk page shows a perfectly reasonable response when those mistakes are pointed out. And this complaint was raised by someone who refused to talk to Kumioko first - even though those of us who have done so were rewarded with a positive and friendly response. There is absolutely no admin action needed here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree, and I do commend Kumioko for strenuous patrolling of new pages; we all have mistakes every once in a while. However, the section above still stands and probably deserves *something*, if only more discussion. gwickwiretalkediting 20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I share Kumioko's annoyance at slovenly contributors. Clearly the creator of this needed a severe reprimand for submitting massive page widening and since there was so little left after the copyvio was removed, was it worth keeping? For poor quality articles and especially those about schools, if speedy is likely to be disputed, I recommend userfying. I give the author a stern message ending with "don't even think about moving it to mainspace until it is a proper article". This is usually effective. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 15:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, let's give a brand new editor "a severe reprimand for submitting massive page widening". Are you actually serious, RHaworth? Ever heard of WP:BITE? A severe reprimand for the copyvio would have been more appropriate (although even there a gentle reminder the first time is more tnanb enough), but a severe reprimand for massive page widening? Overkill much? Fram (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Fram, lets calm down the hyperbole a bit please. I realize you are tring to make this about my aggressive deletionist mentality but that's not the case. I submitted a fairly low % of those I reviewed for CSD. I helped a couple new editors make some changes to the articles they submitted and I moved one to userspace rather than delete it to give the user a chance to work on it. I agree we shouldn't reprimand new users but they do need help. Submitting an article with nothing but an infobox doesn't do us any good and neither does a one line stub saying "This is a place in Colorado" with no references, categories or other content. It doesn't help us if someone copies an article unchanged from a foreign language and pastes it here. I can read in several languages, I can speak a couple as well, but I cannot read chinese nor speak it and I am willing to bet most of our readers can't either. So it does little good to have an article in the English WP that is written in that language. You can continue to beat me up over submitting these for CSD but they are what they are. Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Its time for this Kumioko bashfest to be closed. Nothing positive is going to come out of this continuing. I tried to boldy (admittedly innappropriately) close it myself knowing that nothing will come out of it since no one else seems willing to do the righ thing. It should have been closed when Fram submitted it but the bashing was allowed to continue. So go ahead, run down the pissed off editor because the bully started the discussion. Just remember you are feeding into Fram and BeyondMyKen's ego's by allowing this to continue. You are further enabling their behavior! Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Just going to say that that's more rudeness/borderline personal attacks "You are enabling" and "bully", etc. This shouldn't be closed until Kumioko will stop this incivility and is sanctioned for continuance thereof after above consensus is that their comments were inappropriate. If Kumioko has an issue with Fram or Beyond My Ken, they can bring it up either here or on ANI with a new section, not use it as a (wrong) defense for their (wrong) actions. gwickwiretalkediting 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so let's look at a couple things since I am a bully.
There is the comment on Beyond My Ken's talk page to IP 217.44.127.129 stating "I would respond to this, but I have this genetic defect, I can't seem to read comments posted by editors with accounts using IPs to obscure their identities. Too bad, because if I were to respond it would probably be to cite the socpuppetry policy and then say something frank and straightforward, but witty, like "Buzz off, buddy."
Then there is the comment to me stating, "Hey, KCS, how about editing some articles, and stop putting your nose in where it has no business being? You've only been editing since March 26, yet you've racked up 675 edits, which would be good, except that only 74 of them (15.55%) are to articles -- that's barely more than your edits to your own user page (61 edits, 12.82%). What you've been doing since you were allowed to return to editing (a mistake, I thought, considering your history) is stirring pots, moaning, complaining, and spreading negativity, the same kind of thing you were doing before your "retirement". I'm astounded that you think I would accept advice from you, and that I would think that you, a free-loader who doesn't pull his weight here, has anything to offer me. Kindly remove your nose, stop your bitching and go edit some fucking articles." after I told him to stop being an a-hole.
Need I go on? He has been to ANI multiple times, been told to stop many times, but nothing happens and the community allows it to go on. All you have to do is look at Ken's interactions with other users, nearly any user. Look at his edit summaries. He is a bully plain and simple. You can call me a bully for calling him out on it and thats ok but if the admins and other editors around here would have done the right thing and taken this for action we wouldn't be here arguing about how I am being mean and hurting his feelings. At this point he needs to haev his feelings hurt or he's not going to stop. Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
If I thought for a second they would listen the nice way I absolutely would have asked them nicely. Neither of these users are going to change. Not asking the nice way or the not nice way. The only thing that will stop them is for the community to make them stop. I can't do it. Kumioko (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Then stop attacking them and open an AN or ANI thread about it for community decision. In the meantime, don't try to close this right after you make comments, nor ask for it to be closed. This is nowhere near done, and you attempting to close it just looks bad on you. I'm done here. gwickwiretalkediting 20:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to open up another thread. This one is already open so we should address these problems here; now. People wanted to know why I was being mean to these 2, now they know. Because these 2 users don't know how to act and I am tired of the community being lazy and not doing anything about it. I have seen these 2 users consistently and viciously attack other editors and nothing is done. I have seen these 2 editors open baseless ANI's like this and the victim (me in this case) is expected to just sit there while they are run down and insulted and not defend themselves. Its bullshit. That's what gives these 2 bullies their power. Because the community allows it to happen time and time again and they get more brazen in their pursuits. You and others can think I am being mean to them and I am being a bully to them. Great, one thing you or they cannot say, is that I am a pussy and and a pushover that will simply lay down and take it. You want to block me, fine. YOu will do so knowing that I stood up for myself against 2 bullies who were allowed to bully other editors. If you want to show others in the community what happens when they stand up to these and other bullies then do so knowing you are enabling their activities. A lot of editors know Beyond my ken is a dick to other editors yet they do nothing. I am not saying anything new. All I am doing is saying it in a very loud tone, from a high place, in a crowded room. But I am quite certain that I have not said anything that the majority of the people reading this string don't already know and likely wish they could say themselves without fear of persecution. Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The reason to not use this thread is that this thread is not about BMK or Fram, it is about you, and to complain about BMK or Fram distracts from the issue. That said, I agree with you that there is little more to be accomplished here. Would Fram or anyone else involved please explain what they hope to achieve here? If all you wanted was moral support that Kumioko behaved poorly, you already got that, so it is time to move on. -- LWGtalk 21:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:Boomerang suggests that Fram's obnoxious behavior is fair game for discussion. Administrators interested in enforcing policies rather than ... could consider telling him to behave himself.
All concerned should try to avoid escalating or continuing hostilities. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"All concerned should try to avoid escalating or continuing hostilities" - that's well worth repeating. Isn't it interesting the way such a well-chosen and concise comment can express what hundreds thousands of words of heated discussion can utterly fail to do? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another thread added after the discussion closed[edit]
Closing as nothing else to do here, both parties agreed to a close. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the above discussion, people asked why I didn't just leave a note on his talk page instead. This is why. Fram (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
What are you 8? Tattle much? People said I should stop being rude. There was no other way to respond to your clearly rude and harrassing comments other than to hurt your feelings or revert them from the talk page. I took the delicate path. The articles were crap. I marked them as such. The vaste majority of new articles are pretty good, fairly well written with categories, references, structure and some basic grammar. Porki was none of these. I am glad you took an interest in it and cleaned it up. Thank you for that. Frankly it looked like gibberish so I didn't bother. Kumioko (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Fram's right about the tagging, though. G1 is for actual gibberish: random strings of letters and/or random strings of words; Porki was neither. CSD tags aren't for any page that you think should be deleted; that's what PROD or AFD is for. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 14:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Did you see what the article looked like before it was cleaned up? If not here is a link to what it looked like when I tagged it. I still contend that it was incoherant crap. Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I did. But like I said, G1 is for things that make no semantic sense, like "lakjdnfljqnwefhk" or "Frog blast the vent core". For all its problems, Porki was written in sort-of-complete, intelligible, meaningful sentences and thus didn't qualify for G1. Trust me, I'm very familiar with the urge to just CSD things like that and have done with it, and I've succumbed to that urge several times in the past with mixed results. But at the end of the day, it's just as easy to PROD it, and PRODding things that should be deleted but don't strictly fit the CSD criteria is the right way to do things. CSD are meant to be narrowly interpreted, PROD is the catchall. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 14:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned before the vast majority of editors who create new articles do a pretty good job. The articles have structure, usually have some references and or categories and some basic grammar. Most put out a little effort and I am more than willing to help a new editor who put out a good faith effort to create an article but might not have all the nuances of our rules. That's fine and abslutely understandable and the problems are generally easily idenfitiable and fixable. It should not be our responsibility to pick up trash from an editor who did not give the impression of at least trying. All they have to do is look at another aritcle as an example and copy the format. This example had none of those characteristics. The only reason to even be arguing about whether it should or should not be kept, is if you are looking for a reason to harass the onen that tagged it for CSD, which in this case is me. Fram doesn't care about this article, all he wants to do is harass me any way he can. He wants to goad me into an argument. That's why I reverted his edit to my talk page as trolling (which I reverted, but should have left reverted). But it doesn't matter. I'm not going to worry about reviewing new articles any more. Fram wins this round! Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, once you tag an article for CSD, you lose the ability to claim that you care about an article more than the person who declines the CSD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why you can't just say "sorry guys, I misunderstood the CSD criteria and will use PRODs or AFD from now on when applicable." Why do minor issues have to become huge arguments? I don't know you, but having gone through a couple of your recent talk page archives it seems to me as though your primary interest these days is complaining about how unjust WP is, how terrible the community is, how people are persecuting you, etc. None of this is productive and frankly, I don't think anyone is buying it. Sædontalk 22:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
They shouldn't be major issues. This was blown way out of proportion and should have been closed immediately as no merit. I am happy to admit fault when applicable, if I thought that would matter I would do it now, but it doesn't. That;s how witch hunts work. As I have said before the CSD criteria are somewhat subjective. That's why Fram used it. Its fairly easy to argue because its got some wiggle room for interpretation. If you ask ten editors to rate an article for CSD you'll probably get at least 5 different opinions and 3 or 4 different tags. This is a witch hunt so no matter what I said would change the end result. If he didn't bring me here for this it would be something else. I expect him to do that and I guess I expected people to listen to the Admin over the editor. That's how things work here. Also on the topic of how terrible the community is. I am not the only one. Sue Gardner has said it, Jimbo has said it, dozens of users have said it, thousands of editors have left because of it. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it not true even if you are tired of hearing it. Back to the topic at hand though. This thread isn't going to accomplish anything other than feeding Fram's ego. I recommend it be closed as the one above was before Fram started this new string to keep the harassment going a little longer. Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If, at the very beginning of this thread - after Fram's first post - had you just said what I quoted above, the next post would likely have been an editor (probably NE Ent) closing the thread with the rational that you saw your mistake and promised not to do it again. Again, keep in mind that I don't know you and I don't know Fram, so what I'm saying is strictly based on my perspective as an uninvolved editor.
Secondly, the CSD criteria is no where near how subjective you claim it is. G1 says " incoherent text or gibberish," which means that if you can read a single sentence, it's not a G1. CSD is not meant to delete shitty articles, it's meant to delete very specific kinds of shitty articles. And while it's true that different editors may give different answers (though a good chunk of my ~10k edits is maintenance work and I've only run into a couple editors who didn't grasp CSD criteria after a two post conversation), that's not a fault of the criteria - which is very clear - but with misinterpretation.
Thirdly, yes, there are problems with the community, sure, but the absolute majority of editors do not get in protracted, dramatic situations here. The absolute majority of editors do not constantly complain about the community. The absolute majority of editors manage to get along just fine. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you have to consider that if it's you against the world, it might not be the world that's the problem. And if you really can't stand it here, why are you still here? You must, to some extent, enjoy the drama and the arguments otherwise you'd either quit or find ways to avoid it.
Lastly, while you say you're willing to admit when you've made mistakes, in most of what I've read on your TP archives anytime someone points out a fault you respond by generally completely ignoring their point, and instead focusing on either attacking them, the community, Fram, or some other target of your discontent. Even in your response to me, rather than accept after hearing it from yet another editor that you are misapplying CSD, you attempt to justify yourself and talk about Fram rather than just admitting that you screwed up. Is there a solution here, Kumioko? And can you answer that question without referring to Fram? You have to realize that eventually the community is going to run out of patience and one of these AN reports is eventually going to lead to an indef block or a ban. You've been here a long time, you've seen it happen to many editors, so I know you know it's just a matter of time. What can you do on your end to fix this? Sædontalk 04:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Note that I'm expressing no opinion on whether Fram has acted inappropriately. Nothing I saw in your archives would indicate anything inappropriate, but it's certainly possible that s/he has been out of line. But that's really not the point; ultimately you are responsible for your actions and Fram for theirs. Regardless of what Fram has or hasn't done, as a responsible WP editor you must be accountable to feedback from your fellow editors, and if you're not willing to be then a collaborate environment is not the right place for you. Sædontalk 04:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Sædon, first point - 'If, at the very beginning of this thread - after Fram's first post - you had just said what I quoted above ...' - that makes the reporter always right, one should never discuss that, just accept, apologise and continue. Notwithstanding that, it is just a matter of time before the next editor comes to complain .. Kumioko names it 'witch hunt', I don't think that that is for nothing.
Second point - yes, you may be right there. But is that misinterpretation, even from a long-standing editor bad enough to drag it to AN (look, whether something is speedy-deletion-worthy is interpretation, if someone thinks it is, and tags it for speedy, there is still the discussion possible whether it really is/was deletion worthy. If it got tagged wrongly, but still speed-deletion-worthy, should it not be deleted? Should you tell the editor to be more careful over and over and over? Very bureaucratic thinking there ...). And not bringing it first to the editor? Fram is saying here that when he tries to bring it to the editor he is reverted for trolling .. First bringing an editor to AN, and when that thread is busy dying you bring it again to the editor, and you are surprised it is reverted as 'trolling', and being surprised enough to re-open/continue a closed thread? As Kumioko put it .. 'witch hunt'.
Third point - you admit that things are wrong with the community, and I wholly agree with that. But your suggestion here suggests that everyone who does not like it, should not complain, should not try to actually say things and hope that things improve, but just walk away when it gets too much. Either you contribute positively and don't complain, or you walk away. Because you are alone, you are the only person complaining about the community (most of the others already walked away ..), and the community does just that with you then when you don't walk away by yourself, block or ban. You know, that is just the problem with this encyclopedia. Editors getting fed up with the way it is running, long-standing good editors, walk away (and the rest of those get blocked or banned). If guests walk out of a restaurant, and never return, because the food is crap, the restaurant will either have to adapt, or close because no clients are left over. I still have hope that, at some point, things will change here (though I am not holding my breath).
And that is just what a 'witch hunt' is ending in. Early on, you reply, you try to adapt, discuss, improve. Everyone makes mistakes, but for some making mistakes results in a continuous witch hunt being unleashed on them for every edit they do. For this situation, any admin could just have declined the speedy and improved the article, any admin could just have deleted it anyway but with another rationale, any admin could just have ignored it and let someone else handle it. Any editor could have changed the tagging to something more appropriate, any editor could have improved the article that is tagged for speedy. But because Kumioko made mistakes in the past, it is him who is being reported for it .. and not the admins (or editors) that actually blindly follow mistaken tagging (which is the really more worrying problem worthy of this noticeboard, as Fram rightfully points out as an addition to his major complaint ..).
But maybe that is needed, after all, there are editors that are making mistakes continuously and that must stop for the better of the encyclopedia.</rant> --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, thank you for your comments. As to your first point: no, I did not say that in all cases all people responding to all reports should admit they were wrong and promise to change, I am saying that because Kumioko was wrong in this instance, in this instance he should have accepted it and promised to change. As to your second point regarding witch hunts: I don't know whether this is true or not, but I am certainly not part of any witch hunt. I am commenting because after reviewing his talk archives and the discussion here I am concerned that there are unresolved issues, one of which is not fairly responding to editor concerns.
Thirdly, while I agree that editors, even seasoned, make mistakes, my main concern is not that Kumioko makes mistakes but that the manner in which he responds is inappropriate; both that he seems unwilling to engage in productive dialogue without referencing tangential points regarding his feelings about the community or members of it, and that he seemingly refuses to acknowledge the problem and attempt to correct it. Now, I definitely agree that editors should not be hounded in the way you describe, however I suspect my solution is different than yours. Rather than allow an editor to make these mistakes with impunity without demonstrating that they are at least attempting to correct the mistakes, I would likely recommend said editor should not be partaking in the activity in question.
Fourthly, I never suggested that those who see fault in Wikipedia should not complain. On the contrary, if there are problems with the community they should wholeheartedly be addressed, but in the proper manner and proper venue. And I do not say proper to be bureaucratic, I say it to be utilitarian. If one wants to affect change in Wikipedia or any social system they can not do so by constantly complaining about the community on random noticeboards and talk pages. We have venues to discuss change: the village pump, P&G talk pages, etc. Additionally, when you insult a body of people those people are much less likely to be receptive to criticism; the people who choose to listen to are people we respect and admire, and people admire those who at the very least treat them respectfully. In order to affect change in something like WP, you have to love WP. You have to believe in it as a project worthy of changing because if you hate it, you're going to spend your time complaining about it instead of figuring out ways to improve it. Likewise, if Kumioko hates the community unfortunately he is not going to be able to help fix what ever problems may exist (imagine electing a president who hated your country!).
Lastly (and finally), as I said above, I don't know if this is a witch hunt, but I do see a problem that needs to be fixed. Even if it is a witch hunt, Kumioko needs to be responsible for his end of change. Sædontalk 08:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We're making a big deal out of nothing. I marked a few articles ou of hundreds I reviewed for CSD. Fram saw an opening to send me to ANI and he did. If you don't know how Fram operates or his history then you may not recognize that as harassment or as an attack but that's what it is.
I am not perfect in my edits and I never claimed to be. But I am not going to admit I did something wrong in a process that is designed to be a 2 party process. If anyone bothered to look, they would see several things about my edits regarding reviews: that my rate of submitted things for CSD/AFD are high, probably higher than most. They would also see that a relatively small amount of the articles I reviewed got submitted to CSD or AFD. They would also see that I worked with several new users to fix/cleanup the articles they submitted. You would see that I generally responded to suggestions and feedback positively. But no one cares about all that. All they care about is that Fram submitting that I don't seem to know how to submit a CSD and then gave a couple examples out of hundreds. Hardly conclusive.
I complain, because I want to change the problem not ignore it or kick the can down the road. If more users stepped up and tried to fix the problems (why is it the same 25 admins out of 650 that do 90% of the admin work?) instead of simply ignoring them and hiding in the shadows a lot of these problems would have been fixed long ago. The WMF devotes about 10% of their total budget to the hunt for new editors.
Your comments about making change on the Village pump and other venues gives me the indication that you don't really have that much experience in those venues. Sure comments are made and some things get fixed but its extremely rare and typically ends in failure after expending tons of time. About $4 million annually. Not sure where that money's going personally. I'm not seeing the changes that $4 million should get us. So its up to us to change it. The WMF can't do it. A good example is the RFA process. Its crap, everyone knows its crap, most users don't even want to submit. Most admins don't get involved in admin work. They just hold onto the tools. If they don't use them they shouldn't have them. We should unbundle the toolset so more users have access to the ones they actually used. Lots more ideas out there too but none will ever pass because the community will never get a consensus on these issues or most others. So the venues wouldn't work.
People don't like me attacking Fram, fine, then they need to look into the problem and deal with him and stop blaming the victim. You expect me to just say I am wrong but that only invites him to step up his attacks. Anyway, this ANI discussion is going no where except allowing Fram to continue and is just a waste of a lot of peoples time including mine. Kumioko (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"We're making a big deal out of nothing. I marked a few articles ou of hundreds I reviewed for CSD." I haven't commented on your review work; what matters is that when you mark articles for CSD, you were way too often wrong. Op 9 April (i.e. after the first part of this thread was closed and you should have been aware that a number of people had concerns about your CSD taggings, as communicated on your talk page), you nominated for speedy deletion:
Una mano en la arena tagged as G1, G2; probably a G12 copyvio (translation of part of a Spanish book), but clearly speedyable
Data3 tagged as G11 and G12 (after a bot copyvio report), and speedy deleted
Dan-Yi Chen incorrectly tagged as A2, A5; speedy delete declined (not by me)
Kells, Dumfries and Galloway; correctly but very fast tagged as A3 (one minute after creation), speedy deleted, afterwards recreated with contents; A3 has as explanation "Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice."
Porki incorrectly tagged as G1, declined by me, discussed above
Majakani incorrectly tagged as G2, turned into a redirect by me, discussed above
This means that of the 8 pages you tagged, 3 were clearly incorrect and one was correct but too fast, with the other four speedy deleted, three times for the reasons you provided. A success rate of about 50 % (3 incorrect, 3 correct, 2 correct but with problems) is way too low. We don't let people make loads of errors in one area because they are doing good work in another area. The purpose of this thread was that you either would be a lot more careful and policy-following when nominating things for CSD, or (at worst) that you would stop CSD'ing articles. You chose the second option, which is better than continued poor tagging; but there is no reason why you couldn't continue reviewing articles and tagging some for speedy, as long as you are willing to follow the consensus-derived policies on these. But continued tagging of what you think should be speedied and what you think the criteria should be isn't an option, and portraying yourself as the victim denies your own statements and actions. Fram (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
[unindent a bit]
So, Fram, in the beginning of this thread, you are saying that you are bringing Kumioko here, because you are involved with him and can't handle him alone. Nonetheless, you were in this situation unilaterally reverting the admin-action of another admin on an action, instigated by Kumioko (which comes down to an incorrect tagging), and keep going on on what Kumioko has done wrong (only in passing mentioning that other admins should be more careful checking other's taggings, and calling their actions "blind acceptance"). And in the meantime you fail utterly to discuss that with the other admins, nor are you bringing the admins who 'blindly' followed Kumioko's taggings? You simply suggest that whatever, Kumioko was wrong, even if other admins agreed with those suggestions, and that is why we are (still) here. --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was "unilaterally" reverting, I rarely revert things bilaterally. You may not have noticed that admin's talk page, which states "To fellow administrators - if you feel I have taken an administrative action which was out of place, feel free to revert it. You do not need to seek my approval first." (bolded in original) As for the basis of this case: I saw a lot of incorrect tags by Kumioko, some of which were accepted by admins, some not (or not yet); I had already discussed some of these problems with one of the admins (User talk:RHaworth#User:Ameilaamericajones, and hadn't done this with the other, who had only one instance. Obviously I also notified both of this thread. But I confess, I have started this thread to get attention to some repeated incorrect actions made by one editor, instead of solving all problems this wiki has at once. Fram (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, the experts on G1 might like to consider the G1 done just as this AFD was starting on Theory of supreme relativity (Google cached here) and now at DRV here. There are some very strange standards being applied. Thincat (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That's the DRV I just closed commenting that the G1 was clearly in error? Not sure what relevance that is to Kumioko but thanks for raising it. SpartazHumbug! 11:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Relevance is minimal, but we are here for Kumioko, and not for the other editor who also tagged an article as G1 (and likely many, many other editors who sometimes, or even 'often' wrongly tag articles for deletion - come on, these can't be the only two editors who do this in such a short time). --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I can assure you as the admin who closes most DRVs these days that any similar G1 will be overturned on appeal so I'm not really sure what your point here is. Sure editors and admins make bad calls but we have a mechanism to correct them and we would have serious issues with anyone who seemed impervious to correction when they make mistakes. To err is human. To refuse to learn is.. well.. troubling. SpartazHumbug! 12:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that is exactly my point, Spartaz. We have a mechanism to overturn wrong deletions (that is, articles that were deleted that should not have been deleted, not for articles that were deleted while they were wrongly tagged). Still we are here because Kumioko (maybe at a higher rate, though I think that for many other editors such an error rate of tagging is never established, nor what error rate would be deemed 'fine') wrongly tagged articles. It could just be ignored, untag those which are not suitable for speedy, delete the others correctly even if they were tagged wrongly (or retag first and then delete), or let them be handled by another party if you're not sure. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes I also agree and I have freely admitted that I am not perfect in my tagging and that is why I think the 2 party CSD system works pretty well. If one editor tags something (in this case me) incorrectly then the reviewer would just decline it and move on. Not make a big deal about it at AN/ANI after 2 or 4 mistakes in hundreds of reviews. The list that Fram provided above is only a small subset of the ones I submitted. A quick review of the deletion logs or my contribs will show there are a lot more that got submitted and were deleted. I would also note that they are not being deleted by one or 2 new or inexperienced admins. My submissions have been deleted by no less than 10 different admins, several of which are seasoned and respected admins with years of experience. Additionally, its not like I just got to this site yesterday. I have been editing for years (since about 2006 I believe) and have hundreds of thousands of edits across every namespace and most english Wiki's. So, symantics of whether I used the correct tag aside, I generally know when an article is good or bad and whether it is reasonable to think that it will get better or be useful to the readers. Again though its really a non issue because I am not going to be doing any more reviews so problem solved. I don't have the time or patience anymore to keep getting pulled into long debates. Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not you "generally know" if an articles is good or bad, Fram's argument that you make too many mistakes is valid. I'm sorry, but when your argument is basically " I get n% right, therefore the remainder doesn't matter", that is not good. You argue the two party CSD system works to weed out your mistakes. I would ask why you seem unwilling to weed out your mistakes yourself, preferring instead to force others to do so on your behalf?
And here I was thinking that this was a collaborative project .. do you really think that Kumioko is unwilling to weed out mistakes, that he is forcing others to weed out his mistakes .. ?? --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, can we (re)close this now? Kumioko has said that they won't be using CSD tags any more; that's certainly not the solution I was going for, but it makes continuing to beat them up over the CSD mistakes rather pointless. Let's move on, shall we? Writ Keeper⚇♔ 14:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine by me. Fram (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine by me too and its not the solution I would have hoped for either but I guess there are more than enough people to help mine through the 90 day backlog of 9000 unreviewed articles and the 16000+ unreviewed user pages than to have to accept help from a willing editor who makes a subjective decision about what tag to use on a garbage article. I guess that explains why there is a 90 day backlog! Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved by an Arbitrator copying the comments instead of transcluding. Dreadstar☥ 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've reverted this removal from the talk page of a banned user. I won't further edit war over it, but I think it's inappropriate. Please review and make sure the removal is appropriate. Dreadstar☥ 02:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The characterization of this misrepresents what was done and why. There was no removal, but a temporary hatting so that the rest of the page wouldn't show up in the transclusion. If the temporary hats can be removed without that glitch happening, great. I got no problem with that. I'd prefer that, but it didn't work correctly without the hats at first. I was just following the example of how the same thing was done by Sandstein on a AN/I discussion just recently involving User:Niemti. What Dreadstar kept reverting was the transclusion itself [171][172] and I warned him about it here [173]. Fladrif (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine "temporary hatting" by you, by what authority or policy? There's no need for transclusion, just post a link to WBB's talk page - as if anybody involved missed it to begin with. Or are you acting as WBB's WP:MEAT? Dreadstar☥ 03:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Since Will isn't using his talk page disruptively, he's allowed to make these rearrangements if he so desire, and others shouldn't be making them. Let's treat his talk page like any other, not touching it unless we're leaving a note as part of the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
@Dreadstar I just explained. The transclusion template transferred everything on the talk page, not just what was between the "just this" brackets. I have no explanation as to why it did that. As I wrote above, Sandstein had exactly the same problem with the transclusion function on Niemti's talk page for an AN/I discussion, and his solution was to temporarily hat the rest of the talk page. When the stuff above and below was hatted, then it worked fine. and that's the solution he used, so that's why I followed it. No other reason. I see that you've removed the hats, but the problem has not recurred. Thanks for whatever magic you used to fix it.
@Nyttend - A blocked or banned user can't transclude his or her talk page to another page.Fladrif (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, WBB can make any changes he likes; Fladrif however - no. Just put a link if you like Fladrif. Dreadstar☥ 03:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Your continued tinkering has now transduced Will's entire talk page to the ArbCom Ban Review Committee talkpage. Congratulations. Nice job. Which was the whole problem in the first place. Are you contending that Will can edit the ArbCom Ban Review Committee Talkpage himself? Fladrif (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Your unauthorized 'tinkering' messed things up to begin with, and you want me to fix it? Hah! And no, provide a link to WBB's comment, you don't need to hide and transclude his entire talk page! Dreadstar☥ 03:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you read Psychological projection. For Olive's and TimidGuy's most loyal yapping lapdog to accuse someone else of Meatpuppetry is rich irony. If you have a case, take it to SPI. Otherwise keep your incessant personal attacks and toothless threats to yourself. Fladrif (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If your wording didn't make me actually laugh out loud, I'd report you; but I'll just add it to my list. Dreadstar☥ 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Despite my reservations, I have fixed the transclusion so it retained the rest of the content of WBB's talkpage. Dreadstar☥ 04:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attacks., Indecency and And insults!!![edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
hi,i,m Florence use in fa@wiki and en@wiki , i have any Personal attacks., Indecency and And insults (with arabic and Farsi language) from Lavasan , Lavasooni and any he IP and have 2 SP
This and
This and check user he is have Lavasan = Lavasooni; unable to confirm any relation between Lavasooni and the above-mentioned IP addresses and chang IP in time - and fa@wiki he is Endless blocked User(6 time Blocked) in This , Please check , thanks a lot Florence (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Input needed at AE discussion (Rumiton topic ban)[edit]
See WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rumiton. We're having a disagreement as to whether or not a clear consensus exists to end an indefinite topic ban. Seeking additional opinions on whether a consensus has been reached or not. Thanks. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo) 18:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, additional opinions on the merits of the appeal so as to come to a clear(er) consensus. Sandstein 18:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like something happened to this template and it no longer exists, however it is still used on over 232k pages. Werieth (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Reformatting in wp:Job queue has been unlinking {Convert/test/A} from 531,000 pages, and wp:REPLAG might show old transclusions. -Wikid77 06:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Those are all just the convert template, which still exists and appears to be functioning normally; it was only the testing sub-template that was moved. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 20:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Something probably needs fixed to remove it from appearing listed on the 232k article pages. Werieth (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I think that was "converted" to a Lua module. See Module:Convert and its associated subpages. Kumioko (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
*facepalm* Now I see what you mean. My bad. Yeah, I don't know what the deal with that is. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 20:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It has something to do with the recent edits made to Template:Convert by User:Jimp, in particular this one, I think. There are a few comments on his/her talkpage so I asked for elaboration. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem at Val-de-Ruz#Geography (several "Expression error" messages) is due to:
where {{Swiss area}} is invoking {{convert}}, and the result is passed to convert. Apparently the templates were recently modified to output tracking categories, with the side effect that the result from {{Swiss area}} includes a category which is passed as input to convert, which causes it to choke. Re Module:Convert: I've been working on that for six months, and it still needs quite a lot of work to finish. The module is being tested, and is not in use. Johnuniq (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I had been using the test subtemplates to track the uses of the template. The other day I switched over to hidden categories instead. The pages on the "What links here" list will remain for a while even though nothing actually does link there any more (except for pages like this discussing the former subtemplate): these lists don't change immediately. The real mess was caused by these categories getting added onto a numeric output which was to be subsequently used as an input to another template. It's being cleared up. JIMptalk·cont 05:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Fixed {convert/f} and {convert/gaps} with {choptext}: I have written a quick text-truncation template, named Template:Choptext to default at "[", to chop away any hidden link to "[[Category:...]]" in other wp:wrapper templates which use "disp=number" inside a calculation. The results:
Currently, the {choptext} fix has been made to both the rare Template:Convert/f (option "near=50") and Template:Convert/gaps, to correct the expression errors. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Loss of Toolserver now increases need for categories: The scary talk about losing the Toolserver in 2014 (offline yesterday) due to a lack of hardware budgets(?), is shifting emphasis to using more tracking categories to provide "transclusion counts" such as for {Convert} subtemplates. Hence, we needed to know the unforseen impacts of adding track-categories into {Convert}, and now we find several rare cases where people have been using option "disp=number" inside a calculation, for further processing of each result amount in those cases. It is better to learn, now, how to "live without Toolserver for {Convert}" rather than wait until the final moments if Toolserver is actually removed, when during a site-wide panic, "every template" on Wikipedia might be adding track-categories to provide transclusion-count numbers or similar data. However, I am thinking/hoping that the new Lua-based templates, allowing major articles to reformat 2x-3x faster, might have vastly reduced the strain on the Toolserver hardware, but at this point, I guess we need to prepare to see Toolserver die, and implement alternatives in advance, before that day arrives (and everyone panics). -Wikid77 06:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought that a replacement server is planned. Will require some changes and that the WMF has committed a person and a 6 server complex that has the needed capacity to run these tools. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Based on my experience on categories and my Toolserver use I think we need to retain toolserver and not use categories as a alternative. Toolserver has far greater functionality than categories and, as much as I am a fan of categories, we need to avoid "category clutter" - even with hidden ones. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has just appeared in the Vancouver Sun about the Wikipedia page of British Columbia politician and leader of the province's New Democratic Party, Adrian Dix. I've been asked if I can talk about the issue on local radio. Any thoughts or insights on the matter out there? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I just did the interview. I have no idea what (if anything) they used from it. I tried to explain the basics about reading Wikipedia critically and thoughtfully: looking at the talk page and article history; the question of the BLP policy, and so on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. I must be the dastardly admin whom the Vancouver Sun castigates for "locking" the page. (In fact, I semi-protected it in response to a complaint at WP:AN3, after noticing that this BLP appeared to be edited heavily by a group of sockpuppets). I'm ignorant of Canadian politics, so perhaps someone from Our Great Neighbor To The North could enlighten me as to what sort of political bias I displayed by semi-protecting the article. :) It looks like there's a healthy amount of editing and discussion happening - including participation from the reporter who wrote the Sun article, interestingly - so I think it will work itself out. MastCellTalk 18:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
You are dastardly and clearly a pawn in the NDP lie machine! :) But seriously, I agree that this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. It's just that election season is ramping up around here, so these things take added weight. It would be nice if this were the prompt to expand and improve the article in question. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup, since you locked it without the highlighted (and redundant) section about Dix's firing in 1999, you would be a Liberal stooge. And, because BC politics are decidedly screwed up, that actually makes you a conservative stooge, as they are the right wing party in the province. Resolute 02:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be nice in such situations if there could be a "healthy amount of editing and discussion" so that things could "work...out," without the question having to appear in a major newspaper first. People can't cite a glorious victory for the system after the fact, which it is my impression several have leaned toward doing on various pages/threads around this, when the system only changed directions due to a public goosing, initially - in practical effect - having intervened firmly and indeed without regard to politics on behalf of the more active, better-connected and system-wise participant in a dispute over whether to include mention of a particular issue in an article. (I recognize that User:Skookum1 has stated in ensuing discussions that his intent in repeatedly deleting each mention of the issue was not to keep it from being in the article and that he is now happy with the outcome; again, however, keeping any mention of the issue out of the article was the sole practical effect of deleting rather than revising, and with the semi-protection then locking out those (dismissed as sock puppets) on the other side of the issue it appears this would have remained the sole practical effect if the Sun article - for all its faults in my opinion - had not appeared.) DanCooperPara (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. It's getting worse. Other eyes on the page would be good. I can't say I'm all that impressed with User:Sunciviclee, who is the writer of these stories in the Sun. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, speaking as one of Skookum's harsher critics, I would suggest that finding someone who doesn't have a history of whining about vast Conservative conspiracies everywhere they look to act as the "defender" of that article would help. As I see it, the current controversy on that article is a battle between two POV pushers, not one. Resolute 02:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm watching it now, and trying to improve it. And I don't have a dog in this fight, as I am unable to vote in the election in any case. I would note, however, that it's a pain in the ass that both the Vancouver Sun and the Toronto Globe and Mail websites have monthly page-view limits for free browsing. Grr. Anyhow, it seems to me that the back-dated memo issue should clearly be in the article, but we should equally ensure that the article doesn't simply focus on that issue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've always believed the solution to problems like these is expansion, not whitewashing. There's a lot of stuff that should be added, including a more complete biography, and his rise to NDP leadership. The bigger and better the article is, the more one can cover the controversies without having them stick out like a sore thumb. I look forward to seeing what you accomplish! As far as the paywalls go, iirc, they are both cookie based, so you can either block those specific cookies or clear your cookies to continue - though the latter option is usually more trouble than its worth. ;) Resolute 04:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the (contentious) discussion of This ITN item is pretty much done, so an admin needs to assess the arguments and decide if the item should be posted or not. Be aware the discussion is long, so it will take awhile to read through. For reference, the ITN criteria are here and the posting instructions (if needed) are here. Just about all the regular ITN admins have chimed in and thus can't close the discussion. Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Good grief, at this point it's two days old, and would just be embarrassing to post it now. Chutznik (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, ITN stories are routinely posted 3 or 4 days after the event. (For example 2013 Grand National, which took place on April 6, was posted earlier today). Posting on the day of it is the exception, not the norm. The oldest items on the list are approx. 7 days old on average. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This wouldn't be posted at the top of the template; ITN items are arranged by date/time, so this would go in the middle. SpencerT♦C 02:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've closed the discussion. To be honest, I've been monitoring the discussion since Day 1, and I would have posted it earlier if I thought it had achieved consensus to do so. -- tariqabjotu 13:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Old MGM Reno.jpg was transferred from English Wikipedia, however it arrived without license template. Can someone look up what license it was using here? --Jarekt (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In 2006, the uploader claimed the image to be in the public domain using only the {{PD}} template, but did not substantiate that claim. As such, from the image history, I can't confirm that the image is indeed in the public domain. Not sure what else to tell you. Sorry. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 14:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you --Jarekt (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how useful it can be at large, but I'm sure a lot of you are aware of the existence of the Speedy Deletion Wikia, which automatically copies text from articles nominated for CSD... the purpose is dubious at best but not really disruptive so I guess in the end we don't care much. I can think of issues with attribution but CSD'ed articles don't typically have a lot of contributors. Anyways, I'm following their automated Twitter feed and thought it might be interesting for other admins. So I guess I'm just kinda throwing it out here in case anyone finds it useful! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
What an incredibly bad idea. Now all the spam, children posting their personal contact details, and assorted other utter garbage we quietly delete is preserved ... for what purpose? I'm surprised Wikia was even willing to host this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Not the first attempt at something like this. Usually such sites shut down fairly quickly when they realize they are potentially liable for all the copyright violations, attack pages, and other libel we delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
They'll lose interest in a few months, then there will be piles of unwatched BLP material. The initial purpose of wikialpha.org (discussed here was to collect deleted material, but it was abandoned and has become a dumping ground for all things Transformers. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
What a sad joke. Isn't there some linkage between Wikipedia and Wikia, so that the Foundation can shut down the site? Or not? Chutznik (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Jimbo himself is the sole link between the two, these days. Maybe ask him his thoughts? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
As part of an effort of adding relevant categories to Wikiprojects "Languages" and "Africa", I tried adding their banners to Category:Cushitic languages. A script immediately appeared: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time.". Could someone add the banners to the category's talkpage? I doubt this would count as vandalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Because "shit" is in the title. I've created it as a blank page, since I'm very short on time and don't know the project banners' names; you'll easily be able to do it. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I added the banners. Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Could we add "Cushitic" to some sort of blacklist exception? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan[edit]
BANNED
There is sufficient support here to consider the user banned. I will add them to the list of banned users with a diff of this posting since we don't have a name for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposing a community ban for a long-time disruptive editor from Hyogo, Japan. A formal WP:BAN will make applying any technical measures and cleaning up the edits require less red tape. This individual has used the following IPs:
(It's possible there may be a named account sockmaster, probably blocked, but haven't run across it if so.) Typical behavior is (based on the warnings issued) mostly WP:BLP violations, WP:NPOV & WP:V/WP:NOR problems, and vandalism. The main account is used until blocked, then hops to one of the other IPs until the block is expired, then returns. The raw stats for the edits from across these 10 IPs are: 286 total edits, receiving 37 distinct warnings, and 15 blocks. Top three warning types are BLP (10 warnings), WP:NPOV problems (9 warnings), and WP:V/WP:NOR and vandalism warnings (7 each). There was at least one case where the individual's edits required REVDEL or oversight and resulted in a 2-week block. This works out to about 1 warning (and most often a BLP warning) for every 7.7 edits, and one block for every 19 edits, requiring attention from 11 different administrators. Clearly this individual is WP:NOTHERE and a waste of our resources.
A ban on the individual should be effective because the edits are easy to identify. They come from (almost always) static IPs in or near Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, which I would imagine is not a very common editing source location for en.wp, the edits themselves are in what I imagine is a particularly unusual subject area for edits coming from this area, and also have a distinct style. Typical BLP edits target individuals of certain (suspected) background, often include conspiracy theories, never include reliable sourcing, edit summaries often include ALL CAPS. Examples:
George Soros, added "He is reputed to have extremely reliable sources of "insider" information prior to assuming positions of interest, and had been briefed on the 1st report of fundemental design flaws (reported 35 years ago) of GE Fukushima Reactor.", edit summary "Added enhanced corporate foresight to IMPLICATION OF SOROS [Corporate Negligence] in GE ecological and humanitarian crimes"
History of the Jews in South Africa, added "Convicted criminal Alfred Beit financed Cecil Rhodes and worked under the cover of the Crown Charter to amass domination of the diamond fields in South Africa, which was then taken over by Jewish-bornErnest Oppenheimerin 1927. Beit, particularly influential in Africa, having divested himself from the Crown Charter, went on to deceive Lobengula and created Rhodesia. Solomon Joel, his brother Jack Joel were brought into the company of Beits main early fellow Jewish rivalBarney Barnato. Such influence and power as these men held is significant not only to African, but also to Jewish history.", edit summary "FOUNDERS AND FINANCIERS(dare one say robbers) OF SOUTH AFRICA AND RHODESIA"
Jewish religious terrorism, added "Jewish Terrorism against the British Mandate Palestine: There were a number of attacks perpetrated by Jewish terrorists on British Policemen, Government Offices, Prison Guards, civilians, and foreign dignitaries in Mandate Palestine. Count Folke Bernadotte was murdered by Jewish Terrorists. The King David Hotel was bombed by Jewish terrorists who disguised themselves and entered via the staff-entrance.", edit summary "added MANDATE PALESTINE, do not hesitate to contribute."
Elie Wiesel, added "Wiesel was devastated having lost the bulk of his fortune to Bernanke Madoffs Ponzi scheme. To add insult to injury, he was the unwitting victim of telephone hacking/wiretapping by the Israeli firm Amdocs.", edit summary "victimised by double-whammy, BERNANKE MADOFF FINANCIAL CRIME and AMDOCS/Rupert Murdoch GLOBAL TELEPHONE HACKING SCANDAL"
Arms Trade Treaty, added ", in a possible reference to the Israeli sale of the US AWACS system to Chinese." adding unsourced speculative motivation for something Hillary Clinton said; also added "The current debate within the gun-control lobby in Washington, DC in draft documents, has been critical of the proliferation of large-calibre handguns and "assault rifles" produced in disreputable Middle-Eastern countries, such as the Desert Eagle and the Uzi, which have been glamourised in Hollywood. ... There has been criticism of Dimona-produced [polonium]] and cesium, which may have found its way outside of the middle-east, and has ostensibly been used in assassinations and the construction of dirty-bombs.", edit summary "Undid revision 548515610 by Parsecboy (talk) parsec boy is clearly misleading wikipedians, failing to mention his censure of Basil Zacharov".
Responses please. (Working on sending out notices now.) Zad68 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Fifteen editors notified - ten of the admins who have blocked or warned the individual, five other editors who have issued multiple warnings, and also the individual's "main" IP User Talk page at User talk:58.147.235.216. Zad68 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support community ban as proposer. Zad68 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. I ran into this guy at the George Soros biography which he vandalized repeatedly. The overall behavior is shocking. Clearly the guy is not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support to try and deal with the long term disruption, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support - This guy clearly has an axe to grind, and seems to have no inclination to put it down, despite numerous warnings and blocks over the years. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Dennis my understanding is that CU doesn't really deal with IPs without a named account to try to hang them on, and we don't have one here. I checked and every one of the IP addresses (I think except maybe one?) is a static-assigned broadband IP, and you can see by the regular reuse of them over months and months they do indeed stick around. The advantage of a de jureWP:BAN as is being requested would be that edits of banned users can be reverted on sight without counting toward WP:3RR, and that admins can block new IP socks without having to go through the normally-required warning process. Bans can work in cases like this where the edits have enough distinct markers that make them easy to identify with a low risk of false positives. Zad68 20:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
What are you, some kind of CU clerk? Good to know... still, let's say there is a named account master, that doesn't really help the current situation, which involves all IP editing. Zad68 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support and comment It's not the first time that an IP only user has been banned. There was the German ref desk troll and another user who only used IPs but always signed their posts with a name, which I won't say per WP:BEANS. For those familiar with these IPs, it's not hard to deal with, again per WP:BEANS I won't go into details. Blackmane (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I've created a filter for this, Special:AbuseFilter/546. I don't know how many false positives we'll see, so I'm doing log only for now. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 21:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool! I hadn't even thought of the filter as an option for enforcement, I'd love to learn more about how they work. I've downloaded files of the editor's diffs. If you think they'd be useful in providing the information you'd need to put together a more effective filter, send me an email and I'll sent the files to you. Zad68 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
[was notified on my talkpage] If technically feasible, support. Share the concerns about "enforcability" though (see Dennis). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: Maybe it'd be useful to point out WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. The proposal is for a ban of the individual, the person making the disruptive edits through multiple IP addresses. The person can be banned separately from the application of any technical measures (blocks, filters, etc.). The ban of the person provides the go-ahead for us to use technical measures to keep the person away from Wikipedia, with a minimum of red tape. The support of the ban should be separate from support of specific technical measures used to enforce the ban. (Sorry if I'm going over things everyone here knows already but I was just getting the feeling people weren't keeping the ban and block concepts separate... if I'm misreading that I apologize!) Zad68 02:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. I first came across this editor back in October 2011, and it is quite clear that they havent changed or learned anything in all that time, as the same nonsense can be found in edits from the master account as late as April 2013. Let us minimise the work needed to keep this guy off Wikipedia by instating a full ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support A formal ban seems a common-sense way to help admins respond to this unacceptable conduct. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Per proposal. User is obvious troll and has 0 desire to contribute constructively to the project. ♥ Solarra ♥♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 09:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fixed. The wrestling fans should be happy again. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I messed up when I tried to move Johnny Curtis to Fandango (wrestler). I tried Fandango (entertainer) as a test and now it is stuck there and all the wrestling fans are really mad at me. We did reach consensus on the talk page as that is the most common name he goes by now. Johnny Curtis can stay as a redirect but Fandango (entertainer) should be deleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe that this is fixed. The bot should cleanup double redirects, but I'll ask you to review the redirects and cleanup as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will do all the 'what links here' and check the default sorts as well.
It got stuck..? LOL, moves are very slippery things. I've deleted the "entertainer" redirect. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Admins have taken a look, everyone's happy. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
that User talk:Tolea93, who seems to have been banned for a year, is making odd, sort of disturbing little changes in an article on my watchlist - and others. I will put the notification on his/her talk page that you want. Someone who understands this stuff probably should check it out. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Technically they weren't banned, they were blocked, and the block was recently lifted after a year (I haven't investigated their recent edits - this is just for info). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
{ec}They weren't banned so much as they were indef'd after 2 brief blocks. As listed on the block log, Tolea93 raised an unblock ticket on UTRS and King of Hearts unblocked. I'm afraid I can't comment on the edits as you're not very specific about what's "disturbing". Blackmane (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
So, I checked a few random edits and I am not seeing the problem. Could you please:
Provide diffs of these "disturbing edits" so we can see what you are talking about
Explain why you came here first instead of at least trying to discuss the matter with the user directly
Specify what administrative action you believe is needed
I've just had a quick look, and they're making changes to population statistics, including the article White American - and it was problems with that article that resulted in the indef (ultimately 1 year) block. However, it looks like what's happened now is the original source is no longer available, and Tolea93 has provided a new source. The new source has slightly different figures, and so they've changed them - I've only checked Alaska, but the change seems to match the new source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
They apparently got banned mainly for adding unreferenced figures to White American, but these are referenced. I checked out the figures — well, not all, but a number of them — and they were correct. (I didn't do the percentages, I'm a trusting soul.) I thought this was an updated source? While it seems a sort of creepy interest to have, as long as we have this article, I don't see any problem with fixing the figures. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC).
Thank you Boing and Bi. When I see subtle changes in dates or statistics from red link users I get nervous. When their record seems to suggest that they have a history of this sort of vandalism in the past I point it out to Admins. To take whatever measures they think are called for. I am not asking for anything other than some knowledgeable folks take a look. Which seems to have happened. If you folka are happy then I'm happy. Carptrash (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aren't edits like [174] classed as cosmetic, because it doesn't do anything to the look of the page, and is therefore unnecessary? So, why are users still allowed to do this when guidelines state it is a waste of an edit? Even admins are using AWB for purposes such as this rather than doing admin tasks and helping people. Rcsprinter(constabulary) @ 16:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Since when was there a finite quantity of edits such that we need to worry about "wasting" them? polarscribe (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I fail to see the problem here, and I don't understand how this is an "incident". - The BushrangerOne ping only 16:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Uh, I already closed this at ANI, nice forum shopping. what is it you want an admin to do about it, and have you tried discussing it with the user involved first? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan[edit]
BANNED
There is sufficient support here to consider the user banned. I will add them to the list of banned users with a diff of this posting since we don't have a name for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposing a community ban for a long-time disruptive editor from Hyogo, Japan. A formal WP:BAN will make applying any technical measures and cleaning up the edits require less red tape. This individual has used the following IPs:
(It's possible there may be a named account sockmaster, probably blocked, but haven't run across it if so.) Typical behavior is (based on the warnings issued) mostly WP:BLP violations, WP:NPOV & WP:V/WP:NOR problems, and vandalism. The main account is used until blocked, then hops to one of the other IPs until the block is expired, then returns. The raw stats for the edits from across these 10 IPs are: 286 total edits, receiving 37 distinct warnings, and 15 blocks. Top three warning types are BLP (10 warnings), WP:NPOV problems (9 warnings), and WP:V/WP:NOR and vandalism warnings (7 each). There was at least one case where the individual's edits required REVDEL or oversight and resulted in a 2-week block. This works out to about 1 warning (and most often a BLP warning) for every 7.7 edits, and one block for every 19 edits, requiring attention from 11 different administrators. Clearly this individual is WP:NOTHERE and a waste of our resources.
A ban on the individual should be effective because the edits are easy to identify. They come from (almost always) static IPs in or near Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, which I would imagine is not a very common editing source location for en.wp, the edits themselves are in what I imagine is a particularly unusual subject area for edits coming from this area, and also have a distinct style. Typical BLP edits target individuals of certain (suspected) background, often include conspiracy theories, never include reliable sourcing, edit summaries often include ALL CAPS. Examples:
George Soros, added "He is reputed to have extremely reliable sources of "insider" information prior to assuming positions of interest, and had been briefed on the 1st report of fundemental design flaws (reported 35 years ago) of GE Fukushima Reactor.", edit summary "Added enhanced corporate foresight to IMPLICATION OF SOROS [Corporate Negligence] in GE ecological and humanitarian crimes"
History of the Jews in South Africa, added "Convicted criminal Alfred Beit financed Cecil Rhodes and worked under the cover of the Crown Charter to amass domination of the diamond fields in South Africa, which was then taken over by Jewish-bornErnest Oppenheimerin 1927. Beit, particularly influential in Africa, having divested himself from the Crown Charter, went on to deceive Lobengula and created Rhodesia. Solomon Joel, his brother Jack Joel were brought into the company of Beits main early fellow Jewish rivalBarney Barnato. Such influence and power as these men held is significant not only to African, but also to Jewish history.", edit summary "FOUNDERS AND FINANCIERS(dare one say robbers) OF SOUTH AFRICA AND RHODESIA"
Jewish religious terrorism, added "Jewish Terrorism against the British Mandate Palestine: There were a number of attacks perpetrated by Jewish terrorists on British Policemen, Government Offices, Prison Guards, civilians, and foreign dignitaries in Mandate Palestine. Count Folke Bernadotte was murdered by Jewish Terrorists. The King David Hotel was bombed by Jewish terrorists who disguised themselves and entered via the staff-entrance.", edit summary "added MANDATE PALESTINE, do not hesitate to contribute."
Elie Wiesel, added "Wiesel was devastated having lost the bulk of his fortune to Bernanke Madoffs Ponzi scheme. To add insult to injury, he was the unwitting victim of telephone hacking/wiretapping by the Israeli firm Amdocs.", edit summary "victimised by double-whammy, BERNANKE MADOFF FINANCIAL CRIME and AMDOCS/Rupert Murdoch GLOBAL TELEPHONE HACKING SCANDAL"
Arms Trade Treaty, added ", in a possible reference to the Israeli sale of the US AWACS system to Chinese." adding unsourced speculative motivation for something Hillary Clinton said; also added "The current debate within the gun-control lobby in Washington, DC in draft documents, has been critical of the proliferation of large-calibre handguns and "assault rifles" produced in disreputable Middle-Eastern countries, such as the Desert Eagle and the Uzi, which have been glamourised in Hollywood. ... There has been criticism of Dimona-produced [polonium]] and cesium, which may have found its way outside of the middle-east, and has ostensibly been used in assassinations and the construction of dirty-bombs.", edit summary "Undid revision 548515610 by Parsecboy (talk) parsec boy is clearly misleading wikipedians, failing to mention his censure of Basil Zacharov".
Responses please. (Working on sending out notices now.) Zad68 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Fifteen editors notified - ten of the admins who have blocked or warned the individual, five other editors who have issued multiple warnings, and also the individual's "main" IP User Talk page at User talk:58.147.235.216. Zad68 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support community ban as proposer. Zad68 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. I ran into this guy at the George Soros biography which he vandalized repeatedly. The overall behavior is shocking. Clearly the guy is not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support to try and deal with the long term disruption, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support - This guy clearly has an axe to grind, and seems to have no inclination to put it down, despite numerous warnings and blocks over the years. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Dennis my understanding is that CU doesn't really deal with IPs without a named account to try to hang them on, and we don't have one here. I checked and every one of the IP addresses (I think except maybe one?) is a static-assigned broadband IP, and you can see by the regular reuse of them over months and months they do indeed stick around. The advantage of a de jureWP:BAN as is being requested would be that edits of banned users can be reverted on sight without counting toward WP:3RR, and that admins can block new IP socks without having to go through the normally-required warning process. Bans can work in cases like this where the edits have enough distinct markers that make them easy to identify with a low risk of false positives. Zad68 20:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
What are you, some kind of CU clerk? Good to know... still, let's say there is a named account master, that doesn't really help the current situation, which involves all IP editing. Zad68 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Support and comment It's not the first time that an IP only user has been banned. There was the German ref desk troll and another user who only used IPs but always signed their posts with a name, which I won't say per WP:BEANS. For those familiar with these IPs, it's not hard to deal with, again per WP:BEANS I won't go into details. Blackmane (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I've created a filter for this, Special:AbuseFilter/546. I don't know how many false positives we'll see, so I'm doing log only for now. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 21:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool! I hadn't even thought of the filter as an option for enforcement, I'd love to learn more about how they work. I've downloaded files of the editor's diffs. If you think they'd be useful in providing the information you'd need to put together a more effective filter, send me an email and I'll sent the files to you. Zad68 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
[was notified on my talkpage] If technically feasible, support. Share the concerns about "enforcability" though (see Dennis). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: Maybe it'd be useful to point out WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. The proposal is for a ban of the individual, the person making the disruptive edits through multiple IP addresses. The person can be banned separately from the application of any technical measures (blocks, filters, etc.). The ban of the person provides the go-ahead for us to use technical measures to keep the person away from Wikipedia, with a minimum of red tape. The support of the ban should be separate from support of specific technical measures used to enforce the ban. (Sorry if I'm going over things everyone here knows already but I was just getting the feeling people weren't keeping the ban and block concepts separate... if I'm misreading that I apologize!) Zad68 02:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. I first came across this editor back in October 2011, and it is quite clear that they havent changed or learned anything in all that time, as the same nonsense can be found in edits from the master account as late as April 2013. Let us minimise the work needed to keep this guy off Wikipedia by instating a full ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support A formal ban seems a common-sense way to help admins respond to this unacceptable conduct. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Per proposal. User is obvious troll and has 0 desire to contribute constructively to the project. ♥ Solarra ♥♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 09:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fixed. The wrestling fans should be happy again. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I messed up when I tried to move Johnny Curtis to Fandango (wrestler). I tried Fandango (entertainer) as a test and now it is stuck there and all the wrestling fans are really mad at me. We did reach consensus on the talk page as that is the most common name he goes by now. Johnny Curtis can stay as a redirect but Fandango (entertainer) should be deleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe that this is fixed. The bot should cleanup double redirects, but I'll ask you to review the redirects and cleanup as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will do all the 'what links here' and check the default sorts as well.
It got stuck..? LOL, moves are very slippery things. I've deleted the "entertainer" redirect. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Admins have taken a look, everyone's happy. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
that User talk:Tolea93, who seems to have been banned for a year, is making odd, sort of disturbing little changes in an article on my watchlist - and others. I will put the notification on his/her talk page that you want. Someone who understands this stuff probably should check it out. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Technically they weren't banned, they were blocked, and the block was recently lifted after a year (I haven't investigated their recent edits - this is just for info). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
{ec}They weren't banned so much as they were indef'd after 2 brief blocks. As listed on the block log, Tolea93 raised an unblock ticket on UTRS and King of Hearts unblocked. I'm afraid I can't comment on the edits as you're not very specific about what's "disturbing". Blackmane (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
So, I checked a few random edits and I am not seeing the problem. Could you please:
Provide diffs of these "disturbing edits" so we can see what you are talking about
Explain why you came here first instead of at least trying to discuss the matter with the user directly
Specify what administrative action you believe is needed
I've just had a quick look, and they're making changes to population statistics, including the article White American - and it was problems with that article that resulted in the indef (ultimately 1 year) block. However, it looks like what's happened now is the original source is no longer available, and Tolea93 has provided a new source. The new source has slightly different figures, and so they've changed them - I've only checked Alaska, but the change seems to match the new source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
They apparently got banned mainly for adding unreferenced figures to White American, but these are referenced. I checked out the figures — well, not all, but a number of them — and they were correct. (I didn't do the percentages, I'm a trusting soul.) I thought this was an updated source? While it seems a sort of creepy interest to have, as long as we have this article, I don't see any problem with fixing the figures. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC).
Thank you Boing and Bi. When I see subtle changes in dates or statistics from red link users I get nervous. When their record seems to suggest that they have a history of this sort of vandalism in the past I point it out to Admins. To take whatever measures they think are called for. I am not asking for anything other than some knowledgeable folks take a look. Which seems to have happened. If you folka are happy then I'm happy. Carptrash (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aren't edits like [175] classed as cosmetic, because it doesn't do anything to the look of the page, and is therefore unnecessary? So, why are users still allowed to do this when guidelines state it is a waste of an edit? Even admins are using AWB for purposes such as this rather than doing admin tasks and helping people. Rcsprinter(constabulary) @ 16:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Since when was there a finite quantity of edits such that we need to worry about "wasting" them? polarscribe (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I fail to see the problem here, and I don't understand how this is an "incident". - The BushrangerOne ping only 16:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Uh, I already closed this at ANI, nice forum shopping. what is it you want an admin to do about it, and have you tried discussing it with the user involved first? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's been generally agreed that Nihonjoe's unilateral unblock of Colton Cosmic was not the best idea anyone's ever had, and I don't plan on rehashing that discussion here. However, it's clear that at least one admin definitely feels CC should be unblocked, and others have definitely chimed in with possible support for the idea. I therefore propose that we have a proper discussion here as to whether the original block should be overturned and we should allow Colton Cosmic back.
Personally, I tentatively support the idea of an unblock at this time, per WP:ROPE. If Colton is the mysterious returning sanctioned user (and I'm not claiming that he is), then I suggest that his future actions can speak for him; if he keeps his nose clean and doesn't engage in any problematic editing then there's no reason not to assume the sanctions on his old account could be lifted anyway. If he's not the user some admins think he is, then there's no reason for him not to have the option of a clean start. His block evasion using IPs has been an issue, and I would expect at the very least his acknowledgement that this was not the appropriate avenue through which to voice his concerns, but if he provides assurances that it will not continue I see no reason not to put the IP socking behind us and move on. Yunshui雲水 18:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yunshui, it hasn't been "generally agreed," the block was other than a good idea, though it was the preponderance opinion of the self-selecting regulars at WP:ANI. Nihonjoe furnished solid, policy-backed reasoning and felt the hell-fire because I'm public enemy #1. Some of the pressure since not-subtly exerted on him is quite questionable[176]. Anyhow, there's nothing in policy (I looked, here[177])that says unblocks are to be subject to the will of WP:ANI. Should have been calmly handled via discussion at my talkpage, like Nihonjoe invited. But nevertheless the unblock was reversed, let me emphasize, on the basis of *procedural* complaints (consultation with blocker, discussion, etc.) that have now been answered or substantially depleted. I'm immensely grateful for Joe's by gosh policy-backed action on my behalf, but have told him, hey man better watch yourself now. But what I'm saying with the procedural point is, any another admin could act with policy explanation ala Joe for example, it cannot reasonably be again overturned for procedure, and cannot be reversed without unequivocal wheelwharring. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: Excuse me, my recollection was that the procedural matter was the decisive rationale, but in fact Spartaz who actually did the reversal, in my block log stated, literally, "per consensus WP:ANI," which is non-specific and indeed represents a WP:ANI powergrab, in defiance of policy.
Why don't we just wait and see what, if anything, Colton has to say in any future unblock requests instead? Consensus just yesterday was strongly in favor of reblocking, this seems like a waste of time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Consensus was in favour of overturning Nihonjoe's unblock, but the general feeling seemed (to me) to be that the main issue with the unblock was that it hadn't been discussed. Thus - a discussion. If it's felt this is unproductive, then fair enough; I thought it seemed like a straight forward and timely way of addressing the problem. Yunshui雲水 18:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
That sounds a little like semantic hair-splitting to me. Reading the AN/I thread, I don't think the concern was limited to procedural issues over the poorly-advised unblock; there also seemed to be a substantial consensus that this account should remain blocked. I don't think it's useful to start a new discussion today when, as of yesterday, there was a strong, nearly unanimous consensus that he should remain blocked. MastCellTalk 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally I've notified most of the major players in the drama but may have missed some; if I didn't notify you and you think I should have, then I apologise. Yunshui雲水 18:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment As a general principle I do like the "let's not be hasty" approach, especially when taking actions which limit an editors ability to contribute to the project. However, I can think of multiple occasions where editors are being blocked where it appears the thrust of the arguments seem to be "we can't prove you're innocent of any wrong doing". I think that is a very BAD approach. I know we're not a court of law. We're not a governmental institution. But we do have WP:AGF as a guideline. I say we practice what we preach. I Support this initiative of having this discussion. — Ched : ? 18:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (edited) After reviewing the comments and links of editors who have earned my trust over many years, I am going to withdraw any support for an unblock. This not to say that I "oppose" an unblock, simply that enough doubts have been raised, options have been offered and not taken, and links have been provided which I can understand as questionable behavior. — Ched : ? 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Support unblock: from what I've seen, he will behave. Give him a chance; you can always block him again if required. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No, let's not My understanding is that the orginal block involves concerns that this is a returning banned user and CC has refused to reveal the identity of their previous account. I'm not bothered knowing the account myself but someone needs to be able to check that the clean start is legitimate. Until that has happened considering an unblock is not helpful. SpartazHumbug! 18:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Block evasion is block evasion. If people suspect he's a banned account, WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply. I do wish his accusers would stop being coy about precisely who they think Colton Cosmic is, though.—Kww(talk) 18:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
ok, whatever, if we're going to do this, oppose unblock until such time as CC has emailed BASC regarding the identity of his previous account. They alone are in a position to evaluate the truthfulness of his claims, all he has to do is give them one little nugget of information and we can finally look to a more informed decision on this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Mildly support unblockOppose unblock (see added comment below this one) My understanding is that the block evasion was primarily to appeal for an unblock which is hardly a crime. On the returning banned user thingy, I'm with Ched on that.. I'm only mildly in favor of unblocking because of this, not so encouraging, comment. --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Per this. I did hesitate after seeing this (building a "banned from my talk page list" when you're trying to return from a long term block doesn't bode well) put the additional unblock requests pushes this over the edge and I suspect Beeblebrox is right. If this were a stock, I would be short. --regentspark (comment) 11:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Regentspark, I can only try to tell that I am not naturally the sort who says "request you stay off my talkpage," in fact my first comment to BWilkins before I knew him was a chuckling "you're welcome to stalk it." Those I have asked have long histories of, in my view, truly objectionable and antagonistic behavior towards me. To recite it would to be to revisit and echo it. It has not been a normal Wikipedia experience, and I understand that viewed from your vantage point, my position might seem petty. If you had walked in my shoes, you would realize it is not. As to my unblock comments there (requests?), I don't understand your objection. It's been easy to see where this WP:AN exercise I'm typing in right now is going. The same as the one in WP:ANI before it, and by most of the same culprits. I write here not as a consciously futile defense, but rather to get my position on record to any thoughtful person who reads them with an open mind and eye to policy. You shouldn't hold it against me to seek a block, or to opine on how it may reasonably be done. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: The question is not of stocks, it is one of socks (03:34, 15 May 2012 Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) blocked Colton Cosmic (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: WP:ILLEGIT; undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space) and it's that question that should inform your position.
Yep, he informed me some time ago by email that I was on his shit list and he ordered me not to post on or even read his talk page. It is my feeling that this is a user with a severebattleground mentality and that even if he were cleared of socking charges we probably don't want him around. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Many users here, including administrators, are much more hostile on their Talk pages to others who criticize them than Colton Cosmic was. Indeed, some even delete any criticism posted on their Talk page "unread". (User:Beyond My Ken being the most striking example I can think of; see, e.g., the following sample of diffs just from the last few days: [178][179][180][181][182][183][184]. I guess "we probably don't want him around" either?) Compared to those users, Colton Cosmic is an angel! I respectfully disagree with Beeblebrox's argument here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember sharing the email with you, so I am somehwat confused as to how you are able to comment on its content with such authority. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I was only pointing out what seems to me to be a double standard. And, well, apparently Colton Cosmic never even said "shi# list", as you implied, but you are correct in affirming that I haven't seen that email; I can only work with the information I have.~ DanielTom (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. CC either needs to come clean or explain why he can't come clean, either publicly, or privately to someone who can verify and confirm the disclosure. Every time this comes up, CC seems to dodge it. If anything, I'd prefer our policy to be even simpler and more bright-line than it is on these sorts of issues, but, as I understand it, the block was supported by policy, and policy prevents the unblock without CC's cooperation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support The overturning of Nihon's unblock was a process issue. No consideration has yet been given on the merits.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Do ArbCom know what you know? If not, would you be prepared to tell them so they can make the decision? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock - The previous AN/I discussion was not simply about Nihonjoe's unblock, the reason for and nature of CC's block was also considered, and community sentiments about it were quite clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment and Support. I am relatively new here and by no means understand the policies of Wikipedia and how they are applied in practice, but as a neutral observer (at least I think I am but realize that I have my biases), it seems to me that if Colten Cosmic had never declared WP:CLEANSTART we likely would not be here today since there would have been no sock allegations. My understanding, by reading through everything available, is that some administrators asked Colten Cosmic whether he/she was a previously banned editor based on their suspicions. Colten Cosmic replied, after some coy comments, that he was not a banned user but he steadfastly refused to provide information about his/her previous account to at least one other administrator or member of ArbCom. My question is whether suspicion alone—without solid evidence—is good reason for blocking? If so, can anyone be blocked based on suspicion alone and refusal to reveal private information to at least one administrator or member of ArbCom without solid evidence for that suspicion? I realize that the latter question is broader than the topic of unblocking Colton Cosmic, but it seems to be the governing principle in this case.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Strongly oppose unblock CC has wasted too much time already that could've been dedicated toward improving this project. I fail to see any evidence that he won't resume wasting more of our time. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ Dennis: I'm open to striking my support if there's information that would be proper for me to have. (perhaps via email). I realize that I know very little, especially about this particular case. I'm not asking for information however if it would violate any privacy or moral convictions that one may have in regards to trust place in them by others. — Ched : ? 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I think what we need is for ArbCom and/or the blocking admin to tell us clearly whether or not they are in possession of convincing evidence (and not just suspicions) that CC is a previously-banned user. If not, then I would support unblock. But if they do, then I think the decision should be made by ArbCom as the identity would clearly need to be kept private. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, after reading more comments here, I'm going to have to abstain from any opinion either way, because I clearly don't know enough to make a decision. My only suggestion is that it might be worth ArbCom formally taking this as an ArbCom block and making the decision, as they potentially have access to, and the means to discuss, whatever information there is in confidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If we're really having a do-over after yesterday's consensus, then I'll reiterate my view that the owner of this account has been far too deceptive and coy for me to be comfortable with an unblock. Secondly, he started this new account with a pre-formed "enemies list", including Nomoskedasticity and, apparently, Beeblebrox. We generally don't allow "clean starts" to pick up old feuds using a new account, but that's obviously happened here.
Separately, for what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that Colton Cosmic is the editor currently known as Anythingyouwant (talk·contribs), formerly Ferrylodge. They share an obsession with the "bright line" aspect of 3RR which is, as far as I can tell, unique to them. Compare Anythingyouwant's input to this thread, Anythingyouwant's input to this thread, and Colton Cosmic's input here. In fact, looking at those side-by-side, there's no question in my mind the account is operated by Anythingyouwant - he was once blocked for trying to game WP:3RR by reverting 4 times in 24:01, and he's been uniquely obsessed with the "bright line" aspect of this policy ever since. Anythingyouwant is ineligible for a clean start, having been topic-banned from abortion-related pages by ArbCom. But that's actually neither here nor there; even setting aside my speculation about the owner of the Colton Cosmic account, there's ample reason to keep this account blocked. MastCellTalk 20:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support from the peanut gallery. I note that the original block was based on the possibility that Colton Cosmic might have changed accounts to evade some restriction on his previous account; but that the current indefinite block only affects him to the extent that he does not and will not do exactly that. If his goal were to evade scrutiny and restrictions, he had many opportunities to do so: he could have started the Colton Cosmic account without announcing it was a clean start; and he could have simply started another new account instead of trying so intently to get Colton Cosmic unblocked. The current block therefore has the curious property that it only prevents him from editing because he isn't willing to do the thing he was suspected of doing in the first place. His persistence in sticking with the blocked Colton Cosmic account for a year, and trying to get it unblocked, is the strongest evidence that his goal in creating the account was not to evade existing restrictions. Maintaining the indef block on the grounds that we can't prove he wasn't trying to evade some previous editing restriction requires us to suppose that he is trying to evade some lesser restriction by using an account that has been blocked for a year -- that story doesn't hold together. The only way it does hold together is if you take his statements at face value, that he changed accounts because his previous one was personally identifying; Colton Cosmic is now his only account; and his goal is to return to editing by getting that account unblocked rather than by creating a new one. --Amble (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Some here have suggested that editing project pages, or some other edits on the Colton Cosmic account, converted a legitimate clean start into an illegitimate alternate account. This is not correct. By taking a clean start and abandoning the old account, the user has made Colton Cosmic the main (and only) account. Note that some of the text in WP:CLEANSTART is advice to avoid having the accounts connected, rather than a hard restriction on the new account. If this advice is not followed, the penalty is that someone may find out who you are; and not that the new account somehow becomes illegitimate. --Amble (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose until such time as the user meets the BASC terms offered. Tiderolls 20:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. We don't need another drama magnet account. Come clean or don't come back. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Colton Cosmic appears under current evidence to be unsuited to editing Wikipedia. By his own statement there was conflict in his previous account. And he soon gets into conflict and edit warring with this account, which draws attention from admins who investigate him, and he gets blocked. He appeals to ArbCom. Because he has been blocked on reasonable suspicion by several admins that he is a returning nuisance, he is asked to privately reveal to ArbCom his previous account so he can clear suspicion. He declines. It is explained that unless he does, ArbCom cannot overturn the block, so he will remain blocked. He thinks about it and decides he would rather remain blocked than reveal the previous account. He then agitates for months by block evading and emailing admins. He creates distraction, and draws productive editors away from building the encyclopedia. He is being a nuisance, yet the situation is of his own making. He is currently appealing to ArbCom, so he is taking up time in various places - again. As he has only a few days ago been again caught block evading, he has to wait six months before making an appeal - this is standard. Anyone who feels the user can break policy in order to make a point, needs to read WP:Point. The user's only apparent rationale for being unblocked is that he feels he has been unfairly treated. But we are not a gaming website. There are no gaming website user rights here. We are working on a serious and respected encyclopedia. Users are allowed to edit until there is reasonable concern they are not of benefit to the project. And when there is reasonable concern, they are expected to cooperate in allaying concerns rather than create greater concern by their attitude and behaviour. If Colton Cosmic does not block evade for six months, does not pester admins by email for six months, presents an appeal which shows some understanding of the disruption and concern he has caused (and without attacking other users - such as Timotheus Canens), and shows good faith and trust by revealing privately to ArbCom his previous account, then it is likely he will be unblocked. SilkTork✔Tea time 00:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Responded to SilkTork here[185][186]. Disagree with everything you said about me, Silk. It sounds good though, but (approaching WP:CIV, pausing) you're going to have to sell it even better to make Timotheus Canens *my* victim. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: You forgot to vote.
And now, as if that weren't enough, he is now trying to get reconsideration of unblock requests he placed on other users talk pages while evading his own block. [187]. This is getting ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I actually reverted an unblock request he filed on behalf of ArkRe when he was evading as an IP. I had no opinion on ArkRe's block just figured that a 3rd part unblock request by a blocked user via a sock was not on. Blackmane (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose until he fulfills the terms of the BASC. Enough time has been wasted on this user already. We don't need another drama case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The BASC has laid down a counter-policy demand that I hand over my previous account, WP:CLEANSTART has long said unequivocally "not required." As I've explained[188] BASC laid down this demand for BASC, it's not (currently) an hierarchical assertion that binds or even necessarily informs any other avenue of appeal, to include an explained unblock by any admin.[189]. I can't prove it, but my prior account had a long and productive drama-free edit history. The drama that's enveloped me as Colton Cosmic, was really not my will, but I acknowledge is stoked by my reaction to what I've attempted to show are outrageous and abusive and consistently policy-violating actions taken against me as an editor by some of the worst exhibits of an arrogant and broken administrative power structure. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Concurred with Ched.s faulting of that edit, elaborated and partially mitigated it here[190]. Keep in mind that the whole nature of these block/unblock discussions revolves around micro-examining an editor's worst edits, my admitted WP:CIV slip should not be nec. seen as reprentative. As well the edit there was at least for a good cause. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock, in light of [191] as pointed out by Ched above. Not just because it shows recent sock-puppetry, but mainly because it shows an ongoing intention of pursuing his previous agenda of lawyering, campaigning and shit-stirring. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey watch the profanity Fut. Perf., there could be children present, in fact I thought I detected a youthful quality in the remarks of one of the editors commenting here. I disagree that I have done the first and last of those terms (diffs?) but depends what you mean by the middle one: "campaigning." ArkRe is probably the most thoughtfully spoken editor I've come across, he was thoughtlessly blocked. If you take the time to thoroughly read the file there, you might actually feel a "good lord, what have we done here" sensation. I am pleased to campaign for his block (though he has not asked). I think Ched. faulted my tone there (WP:CIV), I responded[192] that he is right to do so, I slipped there, but for example I used "blockheads" as an attempt at humor, and felt I believe rightful frustration at ArkRe having been so cavalierly stomped on, it got the better of me for a moment there, but if you read my response to Ched. you may see that it wasn't all *that* bad. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock -- the original reason for blocking was valid and the persistent attempts to gain an unblock by using IP addresses to pester individual admins was very much the wrong way to satisfy the community that an unblock was warranted. The user can fulfil the terms of WP:BASC, or not, but if not then I see no reason to change the situation. In part that's because the editor was never (in my view) interested in making constructive contributions here; a return would not result in improvement of articles, instead likely the opposite, with attendant drama and nonsense. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock I did read a good chunk of this thread before I went to bed last night. Indeed, one of my immediate reactions was to Colton's specific and inappropriate attempt to name-and-shame me as an individual, linking to an old discussion on Jimbo's page - a game he also played with one of his block-evading socks. While going to sleep, I asked myself "why the hell would he link to that, or indeed, why would he trash the ONLY person who have him word-for-word, step-by-step instructions on how to get unblocked?" What kind of Wikipedia editor (indeed, what kid of human being) would personalize this situation in that manner? This has to be the most bizarre WP:BATTLE behaviour I have seen in my life. You see, Colton, there's a difference between you and I: I pissed off some members of the community, acknowledged my behaviour and learned from my error - you have yet to do so.
Anyhow, rather than lower myself to that type of discussion (read: lower than low), let's look at the policy-based reasons behind why I oppose unblock.
The guide to appealing blocks suggests that to become unblocked, there must be 2 elements: a) a recognition that the behaviour that led to the block was wrong, and b) confirmation that the behaviour will not recur
Colton's original distancing himself from his original account may indeed have been a valid use of WP:CLEANSTART - privacy and security are important, and I will give the benefit of the doubt that his original account was not blocked, banned, etc (indeed - I think I have said this in his support long before now). As such, "A genuine clean start is not considered improper"
Cleanstart, however states that "You are responsible for editing in a manner that respects community norms of behavior" - almost immediately, the Colton account became embroiled in a 3RR/BLP brouhaha which was clearly "outside the community norms of behaviour". These behaviours worsened. At that point, he violated the terms of WP:CLEANSTART, and his account therefore became a sock account.
At the point that his legitimate cleanstart became an illegitimate violation, the Colton account needed to be blocked as a WP:SOCK. Period.
Colton was provided numerous opportunities to "clear his name" by admitting to his previous accounts. IMHO, this does NOT need to be done in order to verify if his "old account" was under previous restrictions - I take him at his word that it was not. However, as the Colton account was now formally an alternate account, it became necessary to link those accounts together as per policy - however, if privacy issues were inherent, then I see no problem with advising an individual ArbCom member to make this valid
Colton has personally decided that he has no faith in the confidentiality of ArbCom - this is not the fault of ArbCom or of Wikipedia itself, this is his personal damnation of the project. That personal belief cannot be used to act outside of policy or notification requirements
After being validly blocked, Colton used numerous socks to try and proclaim his innocence: however, the proof is that he was not innocent. He needs to recognize that.
Since his block, and even in this very discussion, Colton has not met the second part of WP:GAB in that he has shown no signs of a reduction of his WP:BATTLE-behaviour, and indeed it seems that he's WP:NOTHERE to improve the project, but merely to Wikilawyer and continue past arguments.
As I have stated many many times, once Colton makes a GAB-compliant unblock request (which I have given step-by-step instructions on how), I would be willing to unblock - after all, I AM the admin who re-implemented his talkpage access. However, at this point, such an unblock would have to follow a TRUE and HONEST WP:OFFER, and would need to be SINCERE. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock I've been waiting for some time as I was very undecided. The WP:ROPE given to CC, and how he has chosen to use it, persuades me to oppose the unblock for now. There is too much battlefield involved. Given the circumstances, a more gracious approach by CC, no matter whether he feels he's right, would have been more convincing.Jeppiz (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Jeppiz, c'mon, I can't win for losing here. A couple days ago a similar process occurred in WP:ANI, I graciously laid low while their majesties debated me, and it went very poorly. I guess there might be battlefield involved, but it has consisted of me putting up shields while others throw bombs. I feel I have complied with WP:CIV, the environment in my view does not lend itself to graciousness. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
...and yet you lob "their majesties" out? Stop proving the community right, Colton. You're being your own worst enemy here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Jeppiz, if we assume that CC is behaving rationally during this review of his behavior - a big if I might add - then it follows that he would be on his best behavior. And if this is his best behavior, I wonder what his "normal" behavior would be like at this stage in his supposed self-growth. As is often the case in these discussions, and as BWilkins aptly points out, the subject is their own worst enemy, even while trying to persuade the "judges" that there's no problem and everything will be fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I've had to play ping pong against 15 people at once, and you two fault me for having mussed hair from the breeze. I think all my edits since being unblocked conform to WP:CIV. The "majesties" reference is humor capable of offending no administrator who doesn't take himself too seriously. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock This is an attempt with humor to preserve our spirits, especially mine, and not a mocking gesture at any of you. I figure I want to be on the winning side here, and forgive the battlefield metaphor, keep my powder dry for the next attempt, where I'm bound to get a fairer and calmer hearing from say, a single thoughtful admin who's inclined to policy, and recognizes WP:ANI and WP:AN consensus votes on unblocks have no support in it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Closure. Not counting CC's passive-aggressive "attempt with humor", I count 18 oppose votes and 5 support votes, as well as significant commentary. I suggest there's been sufficient discussion for an uninvolved admin to close this topic. (If I miscounted, I apologize.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Count my oppose to correctly close the discussion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: I assure my supporters I'm not flippant about this matter, and I appreciate them. My purpose is to make a statement about the forum itself.
Yes, you have made it clear that you do not consider this to be "the community" making a decision, contrary to all pointers given to you. You have stated that you do not recognize the authority of this forum to make a decision about your block, again, contrary to policies. You agreed to these when you first edited the project under any name/ip. Pretending that the authority doesn't exist will not negate the decision (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Make it 19, Bbb23. Everything I am seeing from him in this discussion, down to the idiotic unblock request of a site banned user points strongly to this user being little more than a troll who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Resolute 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Disagree, and "troll" violates WP:CIV. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS: "Idiotic request" violates WP:CIV. These are not minor or hypertechnical infringements.
He did not call you a troll, and the second half is a description of the request, not the requestor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
(editconflict) Comment Okay, I have read everything above and the majority of the previous ANI discussion. I looked into CC before the whole unblocking and ANI thing as they also appealed to me through my talk page in the same way as they did to Nihonjoe. I talked to a few people regarding CC and their blocks and past actions etc as well as looking back myself. I personally decided not to just unblock them but I was going to continue to persue finding a reason for CCs first block. I supported the lift of the block on ANI but changed my support of the unblock to a support of reblock and further discussion here (which is happening! :))
Consensus yesterday did point toward reblocking after the unblock and I hope that before people have made a decision in this section regarding this matter they have properly looking into CCs edits and reasons for the block rather than jumping on any sort of snowing opinion from yesterday.
And now for the way I see things hopefully in some sort of order. CC has had an interesting time on wiki, a near run in with 3RR, a response or 2 that could have been worded in a better way, discussion of a potential block and finally the block for 'Abusing multiple accounts' and specifically 'undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space' which as far as I can tell is not founded upon anything. All of the other blocks to CC are just changing settings regarding access to talk pages and confirming a block appeal from Arb.
The user said the account was a CLEANSTART account when they first created it and has said multiple times since then that they were not blocked or banned on their previous account. I really wonder where AGF has gone.. CC has not disclosed the name of their previous account to anyone, but I don't see why they should have to. In response to User:Bbb23s comment above CC has privately disclosed to me what happened with his previous account and from what they has said it seems perfectly legitimate to start a new account.
Block evasion is Block evasion, but I still make the point that the block evasion we can see if only a result of the block (sounds like I am stating the obvious), if the block is deemed incorrect then I see no reason for the user to not be blocked for a short period for block evasion but I don't see how this would help anything as the time the user has already spent blocks seems link a long enough period for me.
Some people say that CC has a battleground mentality, but this is no reason to oppose the unblock as that in itself is not a reason to block in the first place.
I am aware that I have probably missed many things in the conversation above but will try to comment on them and potentially change my opinions from those, feel free to point out any places you feel I am wrong. Currently I support an unblock.
Thank you, Addshore, it's getting last minute. With my vote, I am getting a bit close to gonzo, but not flippant. I respect those who supported me, but it's been clear where it's going, and I will make that statement on the appropriateness of this forum for this, and attempt to invalidate it, except as evidence discussion perhaps, on a policy basis, for anyone in the future who cares about policy bases. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unblock. Wow. I encouraged Joe to start a thread on this matter, and though he wasn't the one to start it I was nevertheless pleased to see the matter raised for discussion, because I genuinely felt that the matter of whether Colton's block was good needed discussion. However, after watching this thread evolve, I have to agree with the voices saying that Colton doesn't seem inclined inclined to play by the rules of the community - any rules, from "stop behaving like this is a battleground" to "now that your clean start has been illegitimized by your behavior, we need you to explain what happened". His commentary about being on the "winning side" above is silly, but worse is his assertion that when this thread closes he intends to go right back to what he's spent months doing: searching for a single admin who's willing to give him what he wants. Consensus does matter, Colton, and after what's happened these past few days I can pretty much guarantee you that any unilateral unblock of you - especially with your current lack of concessions to policy - will be treated as no more legitimate than Nihonjoe's was. It will be absolutely, 100% expected that any unblock of you will come via community discussion, not via your lobbying or a single admins unilateral choice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree mainly with your statements, and believe you've taken a one-sided view. I just got called an "idiotic troll" for example. I've maintained WP:CIV, and answered nearly everybody responsively, frequently with diffs and policy. Far from making "no concessions to policy" I've endeavored to make *every* concession to policy. You've been coming from this angle with regard to me persistently in my recollection, and your attempt to put your decision on my comments here is entirely unconvincing. Reiterated, I make the case that policy makes no provisions for unblocks to be commandeered and finally decided by the WP:ANI and WP:AN crowds. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can characterize me as "persistently" doing anything with regard to you, given that the first time I ever crossed paths with you seems to have been two days ago in the ANI about Joe's unblocking you. The fact that you're casting me now as somehow "persistently" against you is, in my view, an example of the very battleground attitude that others have been trying to explain you need to abandon. I understand that you're emotionally invested in this issue - who wouldn't be, if it was their "freedom" at stake - but please, please stop badgering and assuming bad faith of people in this thread. You're making your case look worse, not better, by doing those things. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
At the WP:ANI discussion, I conscientiously stayed out. You voted block. At this discussion, I participate. You vote do not unblock. I said "recollection" as to persistence beyond that, and it actually is my vague recollection, but I'm not prepared to hunt for diffs, and granted I could be incorrect. I do not think any of that means WP:AGF failure or that I've "badgered." I have quite many detractors here, it'd be difficult for me to go around badgering them. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I am copying comments from CC's talk page that he has asked to be passed along:
Bbb23: don't tell me to "come clean," I came clean from edit #1. Beeblebrox: Yes I asked you not to post on my talkpage, based on our interactions, which is any editor's prerogative, but that is not "battleground," and I didn't say "shitlist" because I personally view on-wiki profanity as uncivil, and as you know I've tried to improve in that regard. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Regentspark: if you read again, you must concede that conforms to WP:CIV. you should give me credit for restraining myself from what I almost wrote. ;) My interactions with Bwilkins have been consistently excruciating from my point of view, but to characterize why would be seen as diverting the focus from my own behavior. I'll risk hyperlinking Jimbo[193] and a "100% concur." Again, I feel it is an editor's prerogative to request particular others to stay off his or her talkpage, and no negative inference should be drawn from that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yunshui, yesterday or was it early this morning was genuinely the first I'd heard or even suspected that ArbCom actually had a suspect in my case. By Silk's words this has influenced them for months, since my first appeal. I was never informed or queried about this. I would've have liked to had the opportunity to defend this point. I'd laugh if I weren't so busy crying. ;) I'm naming this mysterious sanctioned user "Mr. X" and love 'em if they can't take a joke. ;) As to the block evasion, best if I address that separately. It is accurate that most of them were to seek unblock, but a minority were others including[194][195](see blue). Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie, we had difficulties and I still think Phoenix Jones is in violation of WP:BLP, but I think you must fairly concede that I discussed, and cited policy, and edited in good faith to improve that one and the other I created and you and I worked on together. The fully-disclosed IP block evasion has been I think a reaction to a absolutist and abusist block with broken appeal processes that I feel left me nowhere else to turn. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If you still think this is a violation of BLP, my opinion remains as firm as ever. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Colton, let's just skip insignificant details like whether or not you personally used the word "shit" (never said you did though, just that you clearly do have a "shit list") Is there some reason you can't just pick, say, two members of BASC, email them the name of your previous account, and (presuming you are in fact telling the truth) get unblocked? It really would be just that easy, but only iff you are telling the truth. So how about it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Mastcell, I've erred in other respects but all of my edits as Colton Cosmic have been upfront and straightforward, I object to your naming me "deceptive and coy." I will find some WP:CIV way to more strongly respond if you continue this line. You state that I started the account with a "preformed enemy list" but that is not true about me. In fact it is a baseless and reputation-damaging statement that I object to. I had no awareness at all in my prior account of Nomoskedacity and Beeblebrox or in fact anyone else at all that I've run into difficulties with, blame aside, as Colton Cosmic. And your elaborate allegation that I am editor "Anythingyouwant" has left idle insult and gone full-blown fever swamp. I don't think I've ever heard of him or her, it doesn't ring a bell at all. My comments regarding WP:3RR and WP:SOCK and any other policy are my own thoughts since I've edited as Colton Cosmic, I never was involved with those previously. Do my comments actually resemble his or hers? I conscientious stay away from abortion, racism, and Palestinian-Israeli topics like dodging molten lava. It ain't me man, and between this and ArbCom's Mr. X, I'm now wondering how much more bizarre this can get. Is Anythingyouwant Arbcom's Mr. X? Did you allege this to ArbCom? Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Note Mastcell has replied on Colton's talkpage. Yunshui雲水 21:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I haven't had any contact with ArbCom about you. My belief that this account is operated by Anythingyouwant is just that - my belief, based on my experience/intuition about sockpuppetry. I've come to trust that intuition, but it's not hard proof; I don't expect ArbCom to trust it, so there would be no point in passing it on them. On the other hand, my belief played a role in my opinion that this account shouldn't be unblocked, so I mentioned it in the WP:AN discussion so that others can evaluate it and draw their own conclusions. MastCellTalk 23:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Amble, who says "[t]he current block therefore has the curious property that it only prevents him from editing because he isn't willing to do the thing he was suspected of doing in the first place." THANK YOU! You may be on to something. I believe in the project, worked on it for years, and I think I am principled on this point. I'm wrongly blocked for socking, so what am I supposed to do? Become one to continue? Allow myself to be kicked around by Timotheus who doesn't even deign to explain or diff his out-of-the-blue indef. for ten months? Didn't have many options, but "hey, I could fully-disclosed IP edit" was one. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I am One of Many, let me try to convert your "comment" to a "support" of my unblock. I do not think that that first response at my page to Mastcell last year was coy. What I perceived was some random editor I may have responded to briefly in a policy discussion but really had no idea who he was zooming in at my page to interrogate me, about, you guessed it, my previous account. No introduction, no explanation, is he even an admin, so I'm like "what gives you the right?" and my comments including "who wants to know?" were meant to be interpreted as "you are being rude, explain yourself." He was of course interrogating me on the WP:CLEANSTART text that says a currently-blocked etc. editor may not cleanstart, but I didn't recognize this at the time. Those edits I meant with some humor and maybe some smart-assedness, but I didn't think I was being coy. Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Kww, who says "[i]f people suspect he's a banned account, WP:CLEANSTART doesn't apply." Kww, that is not the policy and it is absurd to hold a cleanstart hostage to the suspicion of others. I think WP:DUCK is an awful (and project-damaging) essay and I muse about parodying it with WP:WITCH for editors with warts on their noses. At any rate, again, I've been forthcoming since edit one[196] and I feel that's no there's no legitimate to suspect that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie again. You know I hadn't thought about you for a while, except that we worked on Rain City Superhero Movement together and it's pretty good for a starter and would be a lot better and bigger by now if I hadn't been blocked. However, thinking back you were among those interactions where my civility lapsed. I feel you were aggressively editing, and in part I responded to that, but it doesn't excuse me. I do belatedly apologize, and can at least tell you that I some time ago resolved to improve my WP:CIV, and I remind myself of this all the time. In answer, we will still disagree on whether WP:BLP protects the private citizen alter ego of Phoenix Jones, in part I recall for the "privacy of names" section of that policy and in larger part for the protection of his family, but we will do so politely if I am unblocked. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Bbb23, Spartaz, Beeblebrox and others who either say I must disclose my prior account or point at ArbCom/WP:BASC. I've explained my concern for online privacy, the bad idea of disclosing it to the Arb *list* for goodness sake which was actually an express condition for *its* future consideration, laid out with its declining of my appeal. I've pointed to WP:CLEANSTART policy text "If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start." ArbCom overlooked that last in my case, for suspicion of Mr. X or whatever. But the plain language of its block decline make no assertion of conversion of my block to an "ArbCom block," and in fact an arb told me "we have no monopoly on block appeals." So sure you can oppose my appeal because you agree with ArbCom or think they must know something you don't or whatever, but you don't *have* to do that (at present) for reasons of hierarchy. I'm not going to pour you a bigger glass of whine than this, but frankly they never explained anything to me. It was like talking voluminous paragraphs to a silent void that responded ominously 18 days later "declined, and you must reveal us your prior account," and precious little more. You don't have to oppose my unblock based on that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, I presume the "privacy" matter you state relates to our emails, which I initiated. Yeah, we had some sparks and public silence there is probably best. I do respect you, including of course for your editor retention project. At any rate, I would say regardless of those things we expressed in the emails, as an admin you're obligated to support or oppose my unblock based on your appraisal not on that, but on whether I or any other editor have been treated squarely under policy. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes everybody is wrong and you are the only one that is right. However, this is not one of those times. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
In your opinion, Viriditas. Which is an assertion, not a reasoned position. I have attempted to provide reasoned and policy-backed positions. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
King Of Hearts has unblocked with an edit filter[edit]
[197]
I'm not very sure this is within consensus but would like some feedback before deciding whether to reblock. Do we have a consensus to allow blocked users to be unblocked to allow them to participate in discussions. I don't see why we can't simply copy comments across from their talk page. SpartazHumbug! 06:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a technical unblock very much if it comes with the agreed restriction to use the editing privileges only for participation in this discussion. However, I really can't see a justification for using an edit-filter to enforce it. A good-faith editor is expected to stick to a restriction like this voluntarily. If he can't be trusted to have that much self-discipline and needs to be technically forced not to abuse the partial unblock, then he can't be trusted to be unblocked at all. Using an edit filter in this way is a waste of server resources. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) As long as the user does not have a history of abusing AN/ANI, I don't see what harm this could do. It enables the user to post faster, and in these kinds of decisions time is of the essence (comments that come in early have substantially more influence in the course of the discussion). -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
That's very odd. In my experience, early comments are often seen as inaccurate and have less weight by the end of a more mature discussion that has had additional time to consider the evidence and points in depth. And, we don't need any users to post faster, but rather slower, as it will allow them to digest what has already been said and to sift and weigh these points in their mind. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I've pretty much spent all the time I'm willing to spend on the subject, so I have no strong feelings either way, although I see a lot of wisdom in what FPaS says. — Ched : ? 08:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I've suggested in the past that we need to have an RfC on protocols for blocked users requesting unblock at a community noticeboard. Do others agree? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it's an okay move because an editor should always be able to input in discussions concerning him or her. I think it fair to ask that it come with a concomitant *monitoring* expectation from the filter coder or someone designated in case the user is inclined to explode with profanities etc., which would actually be understandable phenomena given the character of some of these cases. This would be a reasonable monitoring expectation, a "sure I'll watchlist and keep an eye on it, but I do eat lunch and work now and then," not suggesting to draft a prison guard. The copy-pasting from the user talkpage idea has the downside of requiring a good samaritan, is inevitable inefficient, and heck some joker is liable to call out "meatpuppetry!" What Viriditas says about "things should proceed more slowly to allow digestion and more thoughtful comment" sounds good at first glance, but the reality I think is that someone's often going to put a box marked closed around the discussion, before the time-lagged user responses are heard. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a basis in policy for this (see [198]), but it doesn't provide any guidelines for when it should be done. Without that, we're stuck with our usual "discretion". I personally believe it was unnecessary here and not constructive. Copying CC's comments was fine, and it also controlled the discussion more because CC couldn't interpolate comments as as he is doing now, which makes the discussion more chaotic. I also think the edit filter is unnecessary. Per policy, either CC restricts his edits to here while unblocked, or he's sanctioned. All that said, like Ched, I'm not keen on spending more time on subjects related to CC.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The direction of this discussion is unfortunately apparent. If there is, indeed, a deity in the skies, I sincerely hope that CC sees this community discussion as the "evidence" he always claims did not exist before. WP:OFFER will be open to him as long as we do not see the plethora of block-evading socks that we have seen ad nauseum. If we need to "spend more time on subjects related to CC" it will likely be an outright WP:BAN discussion - but that will be CC's choice based on his future actions. I have sincere hope that CC will take at least 6 months away to review his attitude, behaviour, and goals on this project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The big difference is that an editor that is regulated by one of these filters doesn't even cause autoblocks to slow down other accounts, making the editor free to talk with one account and sock with others. I would like to ask King of Hearts to never do this again. Blocks are blocks. Leave them in place until they are lifted. Our blocking system is leaky enough, and there's no reason to implement things that leak even worse.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that autoblock has had much effect on CC when he was blocked, but I also think King of Hearts should reblock. Of course, if someone would just declare a consensus, the issue would be moot, and we would be done - that's my preferred outcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Not really: I would like to see King of Hearts simply stop doing this. He's done it multiple times, and I really disagree with it.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I have abided by the autoblock. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You'll have to excuse me for seeing no reason to believe you.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
My skin has thickened to where you'll further need call me liar and sock to even attempt to get my goat. But if so I'll endeavor to ignore such, and let it do you further shame instead. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Given the badgering in these threads that Colton is engaging in using his newfound semi-freedom, I don't think lifting the block was a good call in this case. In the short term, I think King might want to consider reblocking, but I think more importantly, in the long term we need to have a community discussion about the suitability of using edit filters to lift blocks in cases like this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"Badgering" is the new word of the day, courtesy Fluffernutter. "Nuisance" was Silktork's. Diffs and policy links difficult to come by from them. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I really wish my fellow admins would take off their cowboy hats and show some restraint in this situation. Consensus is supposed to mean something around here,and there is no consensus for this current situation, in fact an argument could easily be made that this is wheel warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with Beeblebrox. The thread immediately above this one shows the community overwhelmingly agreeing he should remain blocked. Colton's comments within that thread, and subsequently, indicate there's absolutely no reason to indicate any discussion with him in it will be constructive - even if the unblock had been permitted by consensus, which it wasn't, it was a waste of time. Using something as powerful as edit filters in such a silly case is just heaping more silliness on to the pile. KoH, I would strongly advise you to reblock him, remove the edit filter, and avoid using it in such a fashion ever again. It's meant to prevent widespread abuse, not serve as a way of kludging together peanut gallery participation in discussions. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It's been wheelwarring since David Biddulph moved the matter from my talkpage to WP:ANI two days ago. He just crowdsourced the wheelwarring. Could have been calmly discussed where it was. I've been WP:CIV and responsive, citing diffs and policy, to almost all my critics. Ironhold, your statement I've been less than constructive is not warranted by the facts, and I think an open-minded person actually looking over my edit history since I was unblocked a couple days, acknowledging the context at all, would agree. KoH, I have conscientiously abided by the filter. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds, this idea that unblock legitimacy is decided by vote of the self-selected regulars at WP:ANI and WP:AN is rejected once you have read the applicable policy: link[199], for those who deem to read such things. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
We have a pretty good view here that the unblock with edit filter has been unhelpful and I have therefore put the block back. SInce I already closed one discussion regarding CC, I guess someone completely uninvolved needs to do the obvious with this discussion, which is clearly ripe for closure. ( If any admin feels I have oversteped the mark reblocking, I'm very happy for them to use their own judgement on whether to undo it. ) SpartazHumbug! 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
(Addressing the current WP:AN discussion.) Statement to all, King of Hearts nicely put in a filter that I might participate at this discussion, but Spartaz has undone it prior to conclusion. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) (Comment from CC transfered by SpartazHumbug! 18:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh my God, can we please get somebody to close this. The conclusion is so obvious at this point, and CC is juts digging the hole deeper and deeper. Ironically, letting him edit here has helped demonstrate how unsuited he is for editing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no clear consensus for an indef block, yet (and the word "yet" might be key at this point in time). Wikipedia is already a social experiment, there's no need to introduce Thoreau into it because the rules/policies/etc are fairly set. Encouraging others to break the rules is, indeed, improper - consensus led to the policies, and unless you can get consensus to change them, do not EVER encourage that form of stupidity. Indeed, if they decide to follow your advice and subsequently become blocked for it, you WILL receive the same block for your part. For someone intelligent enough to quote wise philosophers, Strangesad's actions have been less than intelligent and less than wise to date. For someone who clearly does have things to add, it should be noted that the means are not justified by the ends. Although I do not recommend being a lemming, you will find that operating either within the envelope ... or at least around the edges of it will be far more successful and satisfying than operating within a completely different postbox. If you do truly wish to be blocked (as per your !vote), then please let me know directly and I will do so. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If ever there was a case for a WP:BOOMERANG, the thread above is it. As Bbb23 already pointed out, Strangesad seems to be on Wikipedia with the sole intention of disrupting and picking fights. A look at how much time Strangesad spends editing compared with arguing is revealing. Her latest edits here consist of repeatedly reverting an admin's decision and bascially telling the admin to get lost [200], [201]. Edit warring at AN, on top of all the other problems, it's just getting out of hand. For the record, Strangesad was duly warned about the edit warring by the admin [202]. True to style, Strangesad chose to continue edit warring and reporting the admin for edit warring instead[203].
It's ironic that Strangesad is upset that Humanpublic was blocked for his socks. Lest anyone forgets, Strangesad explicitly encouraged Humanpublic to create a sock to avoid the topic ban. [204]. Even though several admins called on Strangesad to withdraw the call to create socks [205], [206], Strangesad consistently refused [207] again arguing for violating the policies [208]. Strangesad also has a strong tendency to go after people who displease here. Even though she retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later, it says a lot [209]. Unfortunately, comments of that kind are not hard to find from Strangesad [210], [211], [212]. In short, Strangesad is a classic example of a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, instead she spends most of her time in arguments like these, many of which she starts herself. Based on all the diffs above, I suggest it's time to indef Strangesad who wastes way too much time for way too many people. When Strangesad was last blocked, she came to ANI to explicitly state that the block would not change her behavior. [213] She has then spent most of her time proving that she meant it. I already posted about this earlier in the discussion, pointing out that Strangesad only is on Wikipedia for fights of this kind. Her subsequent decission to open up the discussion after if was closed is just a bit too much, especially when it happens twice. Wikipedia is much better of without an exceptionally disruptive who encourages sockpuppetry and wastes everyone's time in tiresome fights.Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is that the admin is edit-warring, having made that revert 3 times. My objection is that he is taking action that requires an impartial party, when he had been arguing and taking sides in the very matter he was archiving. I don't think an editor should be able to to me ""As usual, you just delight in stirring the pot; you certainly don't do much to improve articles at WP" and then archive the discussion as soon as I reply. And I don't think the rules on edit-warring should be different for admins. If I had archived the thread 3 times against Bbb23's wishes, I would be blocked right now. Are there equal standards here or not? [214]Strangesad (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, WP:NOTHERE is a strange thing to say when I just created an article and had it nominated..... Strangesad (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that I've followed a few more of Jeppiz's links, I'd just like to note what he omitted [215]. Strangesad (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Wrong again, I did not omit it. As anyone can see above, I wrote that you "retracted parts of this comment around 40 hours later". Kindly stop making false accusation.Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
But why do you even bother coming here Strangesad? From what I have seen, your personal mantra seems to be about admin abuse, admin powertrippig, etc. With that attitude, and your claimed disregard for Wikipolicy, what is the point?. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Editor is obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia. Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Encouraging others to sock would be enough to warrant this. Treating Wikipedia as a Battleground seals the deal. MarnetteD | Talk 20:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I would oppose this step at this time. Although Strangesad has engaged in some problematic activity as noted above—such as urging another editor to sockpuppet around a sanction, which is is not acceptable—this editor also has created at least one legitimate article. During a recent request for arbitration, although Strangesad's participation was unduly argumentative, he or she did correctly identify a mistake I had made in my analysis and lead me to revise it. Strangesad would be well-served to change aspects of his or her approach to Wikipedia, and a long block is a likely result if that doesn't happen, but I don't know that we need to go as far as an indefinite block at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I took that into account. That's why I did not bring up this issue already when Strangesad encouraged HP to start a sockpuppet, and it's why I first only commented in the discussion above. But the edit warring with an admin over a closure was just too much on top of everything else. Quite simply, the time Strangesad spends in arguments and vendettas is (I believe) far too much compared to other activities. Not to mention the time Strangesad makes others spend.Jeppiz (talk)
Support Newyorkbrad is by far a better person than I am. In my own opinion, whatever small benefit might come from Strangesad's remaining an editor here is completely outweighed by his combative attitude, disregard for policy, and his weak percentage of article edits (34%) vs. talk page edits (66%). This editor appears to believe that Wikipedia is a debating society, and not a project to build an encyclopedia. Despite Brad's opposition, I see no reason for Strangesad to keep the franchise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Not relevant to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I like hearing from you that a combative nature justifies a block, and then checking your Talk page to find [216]
"So, if you wanted to be CU'd, what the hell are you bitching about,"
"No apology will be forthcoming... Next time, reign in your hyperbole and don't behave like an over-active cheerleader."
"OK, if you're going to be dense about the obvious difference, clueless about the quality of your actions, and naive about the nature of identity on the Internet, then there's nothing to talk about and this discussion is over. Bye."
I do have to agree with History2007 and wonder what I'm doing in a place like this. History2007 and King of hearts, BTW, are involved in the disputes jeppiz cites in his complaint, and involved editors are not supposed to be part of a consensus to block. Strangesad (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Side discussion on merits of percentage of mainspace edits as metric for evaluating editors NE Ent 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Re Newyorkbrad is by far a better person than I am. In my own opinion, whatever small benefit might come from Strangesad's remaining an editor here is completely outweighed by his combative attitude, disregard for policy, and his weak percentage of article edits (34%) vs. talk page edits (66%)
According to this, Newyorkbrad's percentage of article edits is about 11%. If you think 34% is 'weak', what do you think about that? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Incidentally, I think NYB is a great asset to the project. I just wanted to show how fucking stupid your statement was. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 6:44 pm, Today (UTC−4)
I am sorry, but NY Brad is a very nice person who spends a lot of time maintaining order, talking sense into people, etc. and that is why his percentages look that way. I happen not to agree with him on this issue, but trying to diminish his activities is not the way to go about things. The point Beyond My Ken was making was that Strangesad has made all of 95 article edits and has been on AN, ANI, etc. many times now (I do not even know how many times) been blocked early on, etc. That is the difference. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, History, I'd said exactly the same thing, after my comment - see [217]. But it's been removed as an 'attack', and I've been warned [218]. Ridiculous. I suppose it's because I used a 'naughty word', because there's no 'attack' there. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Against my better judgment, I'll comment. Your statement above, as with most of your statements since crawling out of the woodwork today, is at best a distraction. What History is saying and what you said are not the same. History is saying that Brad has many administrative responsibilities at Wikipedia that don't permit him to spend much time editing content. You were trying to draw a false analogy between Strangesad and Brad as Strangesad doesn't have any adminisrative responsibilities. That's what you meant when you disagreed (putting it politely) with BMK's statistical point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree this isn't the place for this. I can't discuss this here, because you've re-factored my comments. See ANI. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Observation: That highlights an interesting and relevant phenomenon in crowd sourced systems: "turbulence generates further turbulence". There are now 3 ongoing discussions, one here, one on ANI and one on ANI/3RR that have resulted from ricocheted items from here. Hundreds and hundreds of lines of text will have been typed to deal with this. I think that confirms what Jeppiz said in response to Brad and what Beyond My Ken was implying as well, and what WP:OWB item 3 states: that at the end of the day, the accumulative results here are firmly in the liabilities column in terms of wasted effort. History2007 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per NewYorkBrad, and I would suggest an interaction ban between Strangesad and Jeppiz and History2007. Strangesad is shockingly incivil and combative, however Strangesad's areas of useful contribution do not intersect with Jeppiz's or History2007's at all and both of these editors need to review WP:MASTODONS. If unmodified Strangesad's current behavior patterns will undoubtedly lead to their being removed from the project, but it is time for those involved with this particular dispute to drop it and move on with their lives. -- LWGtalk 01:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I beg to differ on the need for any restriction on myself or Jeppiz. And I do not agree with the long presentation in mastodons - which is just an essay in any case - an overly simplified essay I would say, given that it suggests to "edit on a full stomach" - with no scientific basis for the assertion. Strangesad started the thread above here, and I received a message on my talk page to come spend this lovely time in this highly productive discussion. So again, we have a user with less than 100 article edits causing thousands and thousands of ricochet edits. And note that there is no "content dispute" here. It is her "dispute about a dispute". I do agree with your statement that "if unmodified Strangesad's current behavior patterns will undoubtedly lead to their being removed from the project." I think that is where that path is leading in any case. It may take various turns along the way, but the destination in clear. History2007 (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Strangesad did indeed start the above thread, and an interaction ban would have prevented them from doing so, to the benefit of all of us. You were indeed invited to join this discussion, but you should not have done so. It is a waste of your time and you should be continuing your usual quality work on the wiki. I would suggest that you have a little faith in the ability of other editors to deal with Strangesad's complaints, and that you remove yourself from this situation which will only be a drain on your time and emotional resources. -- LWGtalk 02:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
If it is such a pointless discussion, why did you feel the need to contribute to it? (No reply necessary, I wouldn't want to drain you emotionally) 88.104.27.58 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Since I am not directly involved in the dispute, I can try to help resolve it without as much risk of hurt pride or frustration impairing my ability to be civil. By doing so, I can hope to de-escalate the situation and speed those involved back to productive editing, which is my and should be everyone's only goal here. -- LWGtalk 02:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually I think being nice is part of your nature LWG. And believe me that I wish I had never been told about this discussion. But once formally invited, I was not going to refuse it. As you well know the Wiki has its own way of magnetically attaching users to the keyboard and the edit summary of "let the workers go back to work" just does not work that way. Once ANI starts, production stops - that is how it is. I wish I had never heard of AN or ANI. But I think anything short of an indef (or topic ban) for Strangesad will be a small band-aid that will fall off in time. Think of it this way, your statement about the drain on time and resources just confirms the ricochet phenomenon. I am sorry, but there is no way around that observation. That is just the nature of crowd sourced interaction. History2007 (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Once Humanpublic's topic ban was implemented, the obstacle to you and Jeppiz's productivity was removed. It's true that Humanpublic took the ban badly and made numerous complaints and allegations afterwards, but that was not your problem and would have been adequately resolved without your involvement. Edits like this and this, while correct and reasonable, were wholly unnecessary, and coming from someone with existing conflict only served to escalate the situation and perpetuate bad feelings, which is what has led us here. -- LWGtalk 03:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
We could talk about that more if you like, and I could debate it with you, but why? As I said below, I think this will just eat time now. History2007 (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I would Oppose an indef block at this point. Strangesad's behaviour has been less than ideal, but it comes after a case that had clearly caused some bad feeling, and I'd suggest the best thing now is for everyone to just walk away from this dispute and try to cool off for a while. I would advise Strangesad to tone down the combative approach to interaction, otherwise blocks will surely be forthcoming - but I don't think any drastic action is needed now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so please issue a warning/advice/whatever to Strangesad to take it easy, just somehow close it and let us be done with this, for it seems that it is going to eat time like Pac-man now. History2007 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
If I may, I would not have brought this to AN if it was "just" that Strangesad's outbursts came after "a" case. We now see this after HP was banned for being a sock, but we saw the same when there was a topic ban on HP, we saw it when HP was temporarily blocked, we saw it when Strangesad was blocked. In short, we see it every time something doesn't go Strangesad's way, not just this time.Jeppiz (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
However, reality must be accepted. This thread will not result in a block on Strangesad; just eat up more life. The best remedy, I think is to advise/warn/inform her to take it easy, and move on. And if something happens again, we will cross that Wiki-bridge when we get there. When Peter Lynch retired, a reporter asked him why he had stopped. He said: "On my death bed, if someone asked me 'would you have preferred to have spent another day analyzing a company or to have spent more time with your family?' what do you think I would have said?". That is how I think of these AN/ANI discussions. On our death-beds will we wish we had seen just one more AN/ANI thread? We know the answer. Time to move on. History2007 (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
How about an explanation of my policy-violation in the previous thread? I was civil, I called for no sanctions on anyone, and I asked questions that sincerely conserned me. I reverted an edit that I believed (and still believe) was inappropriate.
I asked if announcing someone's IP counts as outing. I genuinely wanted to know, and the relevant policy has still not been cited.
I asked why Talk page access was revoked, when I saw no abuse.
I asked about a 2nd CU because Jeppiz had said there was one, DoRD had said it was fine with him, but I could see no progress or evidence that it had been done.
So when LWG suggests I should have an interaction ban to prevent such threads, and it triggers a proposal for a block from Jeppiz, I'd like an explanation. BTW, here and on ANI, Jeppiz has proposed blocking me 3-4 times in the last month, and proposed blocks/bans on HP 3-4 times, and not once has attempted an RFC/U, or any other less retaliatory approach to dispute resolution. Strangesad (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I really think you need to take Zebedee's advice and seek WP:Calm. I already gave an explanation of the IP on your talk page: "Regarding his IP, these are routinely used in SPI cases, and it was already discussed in his SPI case and that was how the IP was blocked by Rschen7754 a few days ago. The SPI case, and the ensuing block was visible by over 300 million internet users." So IPs are routinely discussed in SPI cases. But seriously, starting another debate about Jeppiz and yourself here will achieve nothing. I know how these things work, the way this thread is going, you will either just move on and it will end, or will prolong it with no benefit to the project. I also suggested to Jeppiz just above to seek calm and move on. I think Zebedee has been around long enough to know the trends, so the best way is to seek WP:Calm and move on; else it will just eat up time with no benefit at all. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been waiting on this, but now must support this proposal based in part on this recent comment, and others linked to above. There's a major WP:IDHT issue here regarding the WP:ANEW thread, and general rudeness/gaming/whatever otherwise. I have ideas in me head about this, they just aren't coming out right now, so I'll try again later. gwickwiretalkediting 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:IDHT doesn't apply anytime somebody disagrees with you. I gave my reasons, which shows that I did hear what people said--and disagreed. On the other hand, I've seen no explanations of how my reasoning is bad. Strangesad (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
That's the problem, you don't "see" any explanation you disagree with. To take but one example, different admins patiently tried to explain to you why encouraging sockpuppetry is bad [219], [220]. All you did was to continue to argue that it's the rules that are wrong [221], [222]. No matter how many times a large number of people try to explain Wikipedia to you, you just refuse to get it and to insist that everybody else is wrong. Your comment above just proves it once again.Jeppiz (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the recent discussion: the thread I started above, and my concern about Bbb23's impartiality and edit-warring. Strangesad (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. I think it's only fitting that my vote should be just under Strangesad's repeated accusation that I'm not impartial. There's a reasonably good legal analogy. A litigant makes a motion. The judge denies the motion. The litigant moves to disqualify the judge claiming she's biased. Another judge denies the motion to disqualify because dissatisfaction with a ruling isn't a basis for judicial disqualification.
I understand Brad's and Boing!'s points about whether Strangesad's conduct has risen to a level to justify to justify an indefinite block. Of course, deciding what level is necessary is a line-drawing exercise and reasonable minds can differ as to when it has been reached. The reason I conclude that it has been Strangesad has shown recently on this board and others that he still doesn't get it. If I saw any acknowledgment that he understands why editors object to his conduct, I would vote differently, just as I might be inclined to unblock him in the future if he showed that, upon reflection, he understands how things work here and what he has to do to work constructively and collaboratively in this environment. We know what his position is now, and it's unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking back at this, a day has passed, no further comments and as you said the issue seems to be one of "where the line is drawn". So perhaps the line needs to be drawn somewhere between an indef-block and a scot-free walk which would mean a clear warning to Strangesad to: not be combative, fully respect policy and not encourage breaches, or face a block pretty quickly. That would be somewhere between what NY Brad and Zebedee intended and what Louie, King of Hearts, MarnetteD, gwickwire, SJones and others intended. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you know it, but just a short note to point out that an indefinite block is not a permanent block.Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. But the real issue here is the "determination of consensus". So, is there consensus for an indef? Maybe or maybe not. Is there support for a scot-free walk? Not that I can see. So if there is consensus for an indef, let it be. If not, some other measure would be appropriate given the views of the multiple users who supported an indef action. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
And just a further related note that given that this whole issue stared about encouragement for sockpuppetry, the ensuing block, etc., let me just note here that based on this statement Arbcom looked at the technical evidence for the sockpuppetry, and decided to leave the block intact. History2007 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
As expected, not that I think anyone doubted the sockpuppetry.Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Support - I think that if all he wants to do is be a "Sole-Purpose Account" geared toward vandalism/picking fights, then he should go. 173.58.96.210 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose the idea that a few dozen volunteers who happen to weigh in can decide that a person, of equal dignity to us, can never edit here again, is mad. I do not support bans, and do not do so in this case.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Since you oppose all bans (although we're talking about an indef ban here), and would never support one, your !vote can be entirely ignored, as you (apparently) never comment on the basis of specific facts and circumstances. This essentially invalidates your contribution. (And you, an admin - go figure.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Eh? "of equal dignity to us" whatever are you talking about. Encouraging other editors to sock and to edit war and treating Wikipedia as a battleground are the actions of someone of dignity - equal to or otherwise. MarnetteD | Talk 01:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I must have missed where Beyond My Ken was elected a bureaucrat. As has been points out, this was originally a block discussion, but the pitchfork and torches brigade wants a ban, which I believe ill advised. If it was a question of a block, I might reconsider. However, to put it as a ban takes it out of the hands of individuals who can review commitments to good behavior and deal with it accordingly. Reconfirm my opposition.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that anyone above has transformed the original block proposal into a ban proposal. Did I miss something?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, Wehwalt, can't trust us Yahoos in the community, we ain't got no class, no edumacation, can't think straight, we run on pure emotion, picking up the pitchforks and torches at the drop of a hat, not like lofty admins like you, who are always so perfectly rational all the time, and never disagree amongst themselves. I prostrate myself before your beneficence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The section is titled block. History2007 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it's titled "block" – glad that's cleared up. So not a de jure ban, just a de facto ban. In all seriousness, few admins will overturn a community indef block. So, why is that the proposal instead of a one, or two, or x month block? Why no mention of editing restrictions, nor mentoring? Maybe it's truly not the intent, and I'll AGF, but it sure looks like those with ideological differences pushing for what will essentially be a ban. Mojoworker (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Newyorkbrad nails it again... Strangesad has been blocked once (for 24 hours) back on March 1st. And now a pack of editors want to jump to an indefinite? No discussion of mentoring? This is premature. See WP:ROPE. Mojoworker (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per NYB and Wehwalt. (although I have supported a few bans on rare occasions). — Ched : ? 07:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment. This is not intended to change anyone's votes but just a point of clarification. Although these kinds of discussions can get a bit chaotic, the original proposal was for an indefinite block, not a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for that clarification. As the person who started the discussion, I repeat that I'm suggesting an indefinite block, not a permanent ban. I do not doubt that Strangesad has the capacity to contribute and I've never intended a permanent ban. I have suggested an indefinite block to send the message that Strangesad's current behavior is not appropriate, especially not encourage sockpuppetry, actively challenging Wikipedia policies and too often picking fights. I do believe it is a problem that should be addressed, but I yet again stress that it should be an indefinite block and the idea of a ban has not even occured to me.Jeppiz (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
If your intent is to send a message, wouldn't something else suffice, other than an indefinite block (which as I mentioned above is often a de facto ban)? Something such as an x week/month block, mentoring, editing restrictions, etc. Show some good faith and amend your indefinite ban block proposal, and I might even support it. Mojoworker (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Support - per WP:NOTHERE, I'm convinced by all the links and examples given my the nominator... Sergecross73msg me 15:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Whatever the decision, I suppose an admin could close this. Long discussion over.Jeppiz (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, will make a request below. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Request for consensus determination. The discussion has taken place for some time now, and a decision on where the consensus may point based on the issues presented above is requested. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Encouraging editors to sock, and refusing to retract the disruption? No way. "Indefinite" is not synonymous with "forever"; a convincing show of repentance might let her back in. That is unlikely to occur while we adopt a "whatever, dude" approach to user conduct. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree.Jeppiz (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
While suggesting that an editor should sock is incredibly bad advice, can you point to a policy it violates? Framed in the context of the Thoureau Civil Disobedience discussion which Strangesad has initiated below, it may indeed have been an ill conceived application of WP:IAR in response to the perceived injustice of Humanpublic's block. I'm going to AGF... Mojoworker (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You support an indef block on yourself? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
According to some accounts, Emerson visited Thoreau in jail and asked, “Henry, what are you doing in there?” Thoreau replied, “Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?” Strangesad (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
And if Thoreau showed up at the local hoosegow and asked to be locked up, they have would sent him on his way. If you don't want to edit here, don't come here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, users can request indef blocks per WP:SELFBLOCK. So she has the option. And I think she has correctly realized that as in this comment she has fundamental objections to how this website operates. So the Thoreau comment was quite apt. Yet it may be that she wants the community to impose the block as a symbolic act rather than requesting it herself, which would be like Thoreau requesting it. So the request may be a signal to start a policy change, but that is not the purpose of this noticeboard. History2007 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Strangesad is referring to Civil Disobedience (Thoreau), and the second sentence of our article is "In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice." So, yes, the Thoreau comment was quite apt – sounds a lot like WP:IAR. Mojoworker (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. This has, from the very start, been an issue of "following one's belief in what is right" rather than respecting policy. The issue on this website is that so many people's view of "what is right" point in so many different directions that using that dictum will result in chaos and wasted effort. That is why policy needs to be respected. History2007 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment. This has run long enough, block and move on. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm a bit late here, but this proposal to block User:Strangesad "indefinitely" also seems to me, from what I've seen, to be a very disproportionate "solution", indeed one that is unfortunately being taken too lightly. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose indefinite block. My76Strat (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite obvious, could we move on Not only has a majority supported an indef block (not a permanent ban), but even Strangesad herself has supported that she be indefinitely blocked. In that case, it all seems quite straightforward and we can move on.Jeppiz (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, let's just "indef block" her and "move on". Really? Do you still not realize how uncalled for that kind of block is? Please, I urge you to read again the comments by User:Newyorkbrad, User:LWG, User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:Wehwalt and User:Mojoworker. It should go without saying that we must be very careful with decisions like this, when they can potentially decide the future of other editors, and affect their ability to edit here. In my opinion, for this case even a 24h block would be too much, but if you really must satisfy your desire to see User:Strangesad blocked, I would suggest that something like a 1-week block (or even a 1-month block), though still unfair, would be much more sensible. Truly, etc., DanielTom (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. I didn't see this mentioned in many places around here, but the Wikipedia favicon is being updated this month (I think it's slowly rolling out to the various Wikipedias now). Further details are available here: m:Favicon#Wikipedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
How come it isn't on a transparent background? You can set PNG files as favicons. EVula// talk // ☯ // 21:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Great. I feel unending hate against websites with no such icon. My bookmarks bar in Chrome is made up of nothing but icons, so the blank one are unidentifiable. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I think white instead of transparent is used to ensure that the black text is always visible. With darker gray tabs (or a shitty monitor), it would be difficult to see the black "W" without a background, so specifying white ensures a reasonable contrast. Isarra would know for sure. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, that's a good enough reason for me. Thanks. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 20:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Proposal failed SpartazHumbug! 17:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's really a formality a vert this point, but BarkingFish (talk·contribs) has admitted to being a sockmaster (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarkingFish). Moreover, he stated "No abuse? Are you joking? Maybe I can't provide evidence of it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I've had over 20 different ISP services in 7 years, it's no bleedin' wonder the stewards can't link them together. What I am is someone who's LTA'd for pretty much most of his existence on Wikipedia"
Moot point or not, I think it's important for the community to demonstrate that this type of behavior is not acceptable and therefore I am proposing that BarkingFish be formally site banned from the English Wikipedia.
Oppose bureaucratic nonsense per second paragraph. I've already indefblocked him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as unnecessary and also this could be an attempt to "kick the habit" or suicide by admin rather than a serious admission.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 20:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Reaper and RBI. Crazynast 20:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
OpposeWP:CLEANSTART is always an option, so we should not stop that from being able to occur. Russavia (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose - site bans are only applicable for serious long-term abuse, and so far, none has been demonstrated. The user is currently doing no harm whatsoever and it is total bullshit that an administrator is trying to repel, potentially, a useful contributor.--Launchballer 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The proposer is not an administrator. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Neutral While the SPI I filed did show he was telling the truth about the sockpuppets he admitted to, those sockpuppets weren't used abusively. Since it didn't pull up other accounts, there's no telling if he is indeed telling the truth about abusing the site. Although he has admitted to long-term abuse of the website, there's no technical evidence, but he seems serious about it and I would consider the possibility of it being true. That being said, we blocked BarkingFish and the socks for admitting to abusing the website and for using proxies abusively, so there's not much we can do at this point. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 21:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Very strong oppose - per Reaper Eternal. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose this is not what site bans are for. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - no evidence of the long-term abuse BF has (bizarrely) openly admitted to. Somethin not quite right here - compromised account or similar? GiantSnowman 14:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
For those wondering, I spoke with him personally, and no, him being compromised certainly isn't the case (and I think CU would have said something about an irregularity there if there was). He said after being discovered on IRC as him having (at least one) sockpuppets, he decided to come clean before a full and thorough investigation was launched. This is his explanation for admitting the accounts that were confirmed and for requesting the Meta-Wiki global lock that was denied. As for why exactly he spent seven years doing this, I guess it's for any other reason someone does it.. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 16:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we explained at some point, it would be nice if he could go back to normal contributing. Since a clean start is out of the window right now though, and since it just recently happened, he said he was going to stay away from the site. He said he may request an unblock sometime in the future (as BarkingFish I presume), so I guess there's no real reason to site ban, considering the lack of concrete evidence. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 17:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The talk page of Free and open-source software needs to be moved to where the article is, currently it is a redirect. Or the move needs to be reverted. Either way, an admin needs to fix the problem (something needs to be deleted to make way for the move). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Requested on WP:RM/TR. For future reference, please post these types of requests there. Steel1943 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
↑ What Steel said - but for the sake of expediency, and since there seemed no good reason not to, I've performed the move. Yunshui雲水 07:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There have been reports of multiple explosions at the Boston Marathon finish line (I wish I was joking or hoaxing).. be prepared, this is probably going to be a major news event affecting many many articles. SirFozzie (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. I've started closing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools', however I have to leave for a few hours, and I've reached the limit of my skill in closing anyways (some of the remaining are difficult to judge, others I commented in). Someone want to help? Sven ManguardWha? 19:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Did a few. The hardest challenge was trying to avoid silly/humorous closes. April Fools is serious business! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A quick read through the responses so far to this proposal leads me to believe there is no realistic chance of it passing. 28bytes (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Russavia was recently unblocked by ArbCom with the stipulation that he does not edit any articles related to Eastern Europe, broadly construed. He has been blocked twice nor for violating that stipulation. The most recent block was less than a week after he was unblocked. Since being unblocked, he has incorrectly accused Sandstein of being involved [223], endorsed Giano's four reverts of AGK's request for an explanation [224][225][226][227] and Russavia's endorsement, referred to editors as trolls twice [228][229], and called an editor a troll who was a tad bit retarded while also stating that the editor should be "neutered because such people shouldn't be breeding" [230]. He shows no desire to abide by his ArbCom restrictions and should not continue to be a member of this community. RyanVesey 22:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Note that at a minimum, talk page access should be removed. RyanVesey 22:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
irrelevant discussion Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Which "community" is that? The one I've never been a member of according to ArbCom? I find this ban request to be very distasteful. MalleusFatuorum 22:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You've done an impressive job of taking one person's comment incredibly out of context and holding a grudge. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It's really not difficult given all the shit that you and you're like dish out. MalleusFatuorum 00:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You seem to think others complaining about your boorishness gives you a license to treat us like trash. You are wrong. You will always be wrong. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
If the community would prefer that ArbCom summarily handle this matter (Russavia falls within our prerogative due to the recent committee decision to unblock him), I will propose a motion that re-blocks him. AGK[•] 22:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
irrelevant discusssion Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would prefer that ArbCom didn't exist. MalleusFatuorum 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
So would I, but still, if I am to choose between "that ArbCom" and russavia, even "that ArbCom" looks better. Malleus, it is fine to oppose the ArbCom, and Sandstein, but please do not defend russavia. On Commons russavia is as abusive as sandstein and "that ArbCom" here, on English Wikipedia. 192.81.209.128 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Russavia behaves like an arse on Commons, obviously, but so does pretty much every other Commons adminstrator. MalleusFatuorum 00:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You cannot remove talk page access from a user after you have started a ban discussion on him Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean concurrently. I meant that if the community decides not to ban him, he should have his talk page access revoked once the discussion is done. RyanVesey 22:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. If your interpretation of "Eastern Europe, broadly construed" is that loose, then editing the newly formed 2013 Boston Marathon article would be a topic ban violation. Regardless, Sandstein was involved in this instance because they had made judgments on this and argued about this multiple times before, i.e. involved. Honestly, some of the editors who were referred to as trolls are just here because of a cultist attitude a certain website has against Russavia, and therefore honestly could be considered trolls by some people. In all honesty, site ban is not good at this time. I may support if something actually in blatant violation occurs. gwickwiretalkediting 22:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
How you think the Boston Marathon is related to this is beyond me. Have you seen the edit summary I mentioned where he stated "reverting a troll who must be a tad retarded -- if they don't get the meaning of "go away you are not welcome here" after being told 3 times, might I suggest we get them neutered because such people shouldn't be breeding"? It is unreasonable to allow editors who think it is acceptable to propose that we "neuter someone" to continue editing. Furthermore, Sandstein had only acted in this instance in his capacity as an administrator RyanVesey 22:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It's related because there were runners from Eastern Europe in it, and with your super broad "everything even remotely related" interpretation, then it'd fall under it. Sandstein acted as an administrator, and therefore must abide by WP:INVOLVED, which he was in violation of, as he was involved previously with Russavia, etc. I have seen that mention. If someone can't understand "go away, you are not welcome here" and continues to post on the talkpage, they're either stupid, trolling, or better have a damn good message to leave for the person, because it's just plain rude to continue after being asked to stop multiple times. gwickwiretalkediting 22:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Using a current tragedy to make some inane point on the internet is particularly distasteful. Seriously - Alison❤ 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't use the tragedy, I used the race. I didn't mean to use it in that manner, it was just (for no bad reason) the first thing on my head. There are tons of articles that could be "broadly construed" to be Eastern Europe. Does that mean that they are so Eastern Europe that they are a violation of the spirit of the topic ban? No.gwickwiretalkediting 22:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Gwickwire, broadly construed isn't my terminology, it is ArbCom's. RyanVesey 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
But your (different than mine and many) opinion of what is broadly construed as being violation of the spirit of the ban is your terminology/opinion. gwickwiretalkediting 22:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Editing an article on a Lithuanian-born diplomat serving as ambassador to Ukraine and Moldova is something that quite obviously fits within the scope of an Eastern European topic ban. Getting himself blocked for a month removing the PROD tag on an article within his ban scope that had no hope of actually being deleted was a pretty stupid thing for Russavia to do, but valid nonetheless. That being said, I don't think it warrants a site ban at this point. Resolute 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, so editing an article on someone who just was linked to a country in some way at all is a violation of the spirit of the ban? Especially the minor deprod edit that Russavia made per WP:DIPLOMAT? I don't agree. gwickwiretalkediting 22:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When the Klan decides your time is up, then your time is up. MalleusFatuorum 23:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Broadly construed. The entire point of that terminology is to prevent the very attempts to weasel around topic bans that we are seeing here. Resolute 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
So you're telling me that the fact that Russavia had no idea that it would violate their ban to remove a prod on a diplomat article just because it barely was related to Eastern Europe? That's just plain wrong. Why don't we all just go improve the encyclopedia, like Russavia was trying to do before people pounced on him for something completely stupid? gwickwiretalkediting 23:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I doubt very much that Russavia is so naive as not to realize that an article with multiple significant links to Eastern Europe would fall under his ban. Your attempts at trivializing links to an Eastern European-born diplomat who was situated in Eastern Europe as "barely related" are unconvincing. Resolute 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we can ban people for being eugenicists, but we can ban people for proposing eugenics as a solution to a dispute. On a side note, thank you for giving me the term, I couldn't find it RyanVesey 22:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Could someone be proactive and move this stupid discussion to a subpage, so people who think Sandstein and Russavia and AGK and Wikipediocracy and pretty much everyone who is going to comment on this all suck don't have to watch this train wreck? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Looks like this is going to get ugly. I think AGK's suggestion of letting ArbCom handle it isn't so bad. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd be fine with it, so long as someone handles it. RyanVesey 22:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose ban. Russavia is currently blocked and that is the extent I would support for sanctioning the highlighted conduct. My76Strat (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that his comments seem to be indicate his account was compromised. I don't see any need for a site-ban. Were you the editor who made the AE requests about Russavia? Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Nearly all that he has done since returning has been making completely appropriate changes to images on articles. These blocks are basically the result of people hounding him over technicalities in the hopes of getting him sanctioned. It's harassment plain and simple. His topic ban was issued because he went overboard with the Polandball stuff, not because of comments on the copyright status of a Bulgarian telecommunication company's logo or because of some article about an Israeli diplomat who has served in the former Soviet Union. It was too broad in the first place under the circumstances and now it is just being abused as part of a vendetta.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 23:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Not sure if a site ban is the answer. Having said that, I find Russavia's conduct, particularly toward Mathsci, grossly inappropriate. Admins are people too. Arbs are people too. Giano, Malleus and Russavia, while also people too, are behaving like children. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose While Russavia is by no means the easiest user to work with, I find The Devil's Advocate's point to be roughly my own thinking on the matter. Sven ManguardWha? 00:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per TDA. While some of Russavia's recent actions have been problematic, this ban proposal would have the effect of blessing those who have harassed him. Those on the other side are guilty too, and sanctioning exactly one person here would be a thoroughly wrong solution. [edit conflict with Sven] Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. We should sanction Giano for edit warring. These renegades have been causing trouble for long enough. It's time for them to start behaving like adults. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I seriously considered blocking him for the 4RR, but as he hasn't edited since 21:45, it would kind of be punitive rather than preventative. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose My initial hunch was that a one-month block was sufficient, and if he continues his behavior after the block we can decided what to do then, but I hesitated under the expectation that this would turn into a giant drama mess with the sides evenly split and felt ArbCom would provide a cleaner resolution. However, now consensus seems to be forming on matter, so I will reaffirm my position. Strong WP:TROUT to the people involved per AutomaticStrikeout's comment, though. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Good gravy: honestly, if you think he's a troll, stop feeding him. If you don't think he's a troll, leave the guy alone. If you want to argue with him, here's where to go. If you want to kvetch about him, then hop on over to that place where people do that. Sheesh, give the guy some space. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Let's wait a month, and see what happens when the block expires. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit counter seems to be broken [231], not sure how long its been offline. I don't know how the footer of Special:Contributions is edited but if the outage is long perhaps it should be redirected to a notice. NE Ent 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Ping TP? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been having trouble with Toolserver in general for at least a few hours now. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Toolserver has been having problems for a while. So expect any tools that use it to have issues. Yesterday, you could not get the list of redirects to an article. Until the foundation get the replacement service on line, there will probably be more issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Those things are sensitive, you left off a closing bracket in one of the links that broke it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 30 June 2014. Once again, the application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available here.
Done Not sure what the requirements are, taking your word for it.--v/r - TP 12:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
CheckUser is not for fishing".—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
Good to know... still, let's say there is a named account master, that doesn't really help the current situation, which involves all IP editing. 
.jpg){kind=link}
