Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260

Uncivil discussion by User:Sean.hoyland

User:Sean.hoyland appears to be wikihounding and violating WP:Civility. He has made matters worse by impeding honest efforts at dispute resolution. He appears unable to control his battleground behavior. His comments are in clear violation of civility, namely, by "making snide comments, making personal remarks about editors, and being aggressive." He recently put me in the same category as "advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, and others who "deny the existence of evidence." (See WP:NPA: "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. [See also Godwin's law.]") I have done nothing to deserve such attacks.

• As can be seen, I have voiced concerns politely and made an honest effort to engage in discussion in Talk:Israel#Palestinian state, but he has responded aggressively to dispute resolution of a reasonable disagreement. It is an honest discussion that does not show any signs of WP:NOTADVOCATE, for which he cites as his reason for rejected any form of DR.[redacted]
• He said I and another editor lack "basic behavioral attributes," but never explained what he means, for his reason not to resolve the dispute.[1][redacted]
• In a search for guidance, I looked for editors who are willing to volunteer to help resolve disputes. I found an admin and made a polite request for advice for this situation. User:Sean.hoyland, apparently by wikihounding, made an aggressive, uncivil, and rude comment on the editor's page after my request:

  I am not refusing to "cooperate in any form of dispute resolution". I am refusing to cooperate with you. ... I also don't cooperate with advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, a variety of editors who deny the existence of evidence, because it is a waste of time.

I have acted professionally and collegially and have done nothing to deserve these abrasive comments. I have sought to resolve our disagreement, but this user is making that difficult if not impossible. He cannot control his battleground behavior, and while I have remained civil he is not making an effort to engage in dispute resolution, leaving many cases at a standstill. I kindly bring this to your attention. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I took the time to read first 20 edits of this discussion: Talk:Israel#Palestinian state. Precision123 is performing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in re-opening the unfamous case that West Bank and Gaza Strip would not be Palestinian (occupied) territories but disputed territories per WP:NPov. I can understand that the way he insists despite the responses that he receives could upset and make many lose their temper. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  (edit) And I lost my time. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no civil POV pushing at all. There are no fringe theories that I push or give any weight to. I fully support describing the Palestinian territories as the Palestinian territories. My position is against the POV pushing of "State of Palestine" on the borders. I fully support that the Palestinian territories are the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the reliable sources do not refer to those territories as the state of Palestine. (Same with most WP articles). Please do not make those accusations. --Precision123 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why Pluto2012 is bringing up an unrelated edit that is a year old, to which I have made no further edits since. Pluto2012's edit was just quickly removed by another editor there just now, so I am not sure what his grievance is. I have made many improvements to articles of political parties (e.g., Hatnuah, Meretz, Likud, Green Movement, Ale Yarok, Yesh Atid, Shas, etc.) virtually all of them uncontroversial and accepted by editors still today. You may see. No accusations of POV pushing before. This is not related, so please stay on topic. --Precision123 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012:, you want to see civil POV pushing by Precision123 just look here: Talk:Haaretz.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is another case where Precision123 tries to make a case out of nothing against Sean.hoyland. Start being a useful contributor and you will surely get better replies and cooperation. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please allow the admins to respond and read for themselves. This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. The diffs speak for themselves. A lack of civility and effort to cooperate is apparent. I have always been a useful and professional contributor and have been civil, so please leave your personal attacks to yourself. --Precision123 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123 says This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. WP:WIAPA says Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. What's wrong with this picture?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have used several diffs pointing to specific incidents, unlike the other editors' comments, including yours. Please avoid accusations and let the admins see for themselves. I have acted professionally and have done nothing to deserve rude remarks or aggressive comparisons to Holocaust deniers when I politely request dispute resolution. --Precision123 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Precision123 needs to be more concise—the opening paragraph is filled with irrelevant links (people here know what "intelligent design" is, and come to think of it, they know what CIVIL is as well). I looked at the first link that appeared to be about the issue, and found a perfectly civil and helpful comment from Sean Hoyland, currently visible here. The comment may be regarded as a little blunt, but all editors who have met WP:CPUSH contributors know that mediation is a waste of time in certain cases. My recommendation would be for Precision123 to examine the message in the comment and evaluate whether any of it may have merit. Wikipedia is not available for advocacy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was trying to be as inclusive as I could, but I will take your advice. My concern is over an editor who essentially acts a stumbling block to dispute resolution as could be seen there. I have not done anything to be put in categories with people like Holocaust denier, intelligent design advocates, etc., with whom mediation might actually be worthless. Rather, I want to pursue dispute resolution, and this editor just responds abrasively and rudely to me. --Precision123 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123, can you please stop editing your remarks after people have responded to them? It's extremely confusing for everyone who's trying to follow the conversation, if anyone still is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if it was confusing for you. I put a note that says [redact] because I took the advice to make it more concise. I do not want my statement to be misconstrued. Never would I do anything like POV push (civil or otherwise), and there is no evidence that I have. Dispute resolution is between editors who do not agree, not between those who do. All I ask for is an honest discussion, and an editor should respond in a manner that is civil. Responding so aggressively to a polite request for DR is disruptive and unfair. --Precision123 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not trying it get involved in admin matters or even know if I'm aloud to post here. If I'm not my apologies. Sean Hoyland isn't patting anyone on the butt and tucking them in good night but he's hardly breached civility. I'm involved with this dispute or or least the one involving regarding Israel. Sean maybe a stumbling block for dispute resolution. But all avenues of dispute resolution used have been optional. I hate to assume bad faith but that is all can assume here. I have to ask you Precision if this is an effort to get Sean out of the way temporarily so that you can have a better chance at forcing a consensus. Again my apologies administrators if I shouldn't have posted here. As party involved in the dispute that lead to this I thought would be appropriate. Echo me if I'm required here for anything.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not at all, Serialjoepsycho. I would love to cooperate with him or any other editor in dispute resolution. I have never requested that he be blocked. As you can see I am understandably offended by such abrasive comments; I did nothing to deserve them and it is disrupting an honest effort at dispute resolution. But I did not want him to be blocked or banned. We have a reasonable disagreement that is best guided by an admin or mediator. I think that would be great for all of us if he were to engage, and did not impede, dispute resolution. I am sorry if that was not clear before. --Precision123 (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the talk page, Precision123's behavior here and elsewhere, I have imposed an ARBPIA Discretionary Sanctions 1-week article ban on Precision123 editing Israel and its talk page. He is acting politely and within administrative channels, but in a persistently disruptive manner in which he is acting as if the others around him cannot have a valid differing viewpoint. This is not collegial; we do not require everyone sing Kumbaya and agree on the real world positions, but we do require that you respect that others can have differing opinions and that those are valid and need to be respected. Merely holding a differing opinion is not grounds for administrative challenges or disruptive behavior, even if those are done very politely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Not previously familiar with WP:ARBPIA, or if I were in the past, I've forgotten it. Are you doing this under the "Standard discretionary sanctions" section, the remedy 6)? Not challenging, just seeking to be clear, especially since Arbcom's repealed some findings and provisions as well as enacting others that weren't originally included. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, standard discretionary sanctions are now enabled on all PIA articles. They enable any uninvolved administrator to warn any editor who they believe is editing in a disruptive manner in the field, which was done twice earlier this year for Precision123. Once warned, any uninvolved administrator can article or topic ban, etc. etc. Arbitration enforcement DS admin actions are not subject to one-admin overturn, but can be appealed or reviewed and overturned subject to a reasonable consensus on any appropriate noticeboard (which I think is AN, ANI, or AE). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Boomerang. I think from looking at those differences that Sean hoyland is the cool-headed person, besides being overall a constructive editor. Precision123 on the other hand appears to be a POV pusher and his overal behavior in my opinion warrants a topic ban of some sort. Pass a Method talk 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Another editor is asking Sean to be polite:

User Sean.hoyland could first apologize for foul language and again here before making any further edits in this page. Tkuvho (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

— Tkuvho, diff

Yes, that is something that I could do. There are very many things I could do, but that is one of the things I will not be doing. This has already been explained to you at Talk:SodaStream#Reducing_policy_compliance. You are welcome to keep asking at my talk page but you will be wasting your time. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe someone needs to lighten up? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My time is limited today so I'll keep it short. Precision123 made statements at AGK's talk page that misrepresented the state of affairs. My comment addressed those falsehoods. The editor has demonstrated a capacity to both ignore evidence and make false statements premised on the absence of that evidence. The existence of information in RS and the policies that describe the methods that must be used to build the encyclopedia and make content decisions based on that information have no dependency on my existence as an editor or my views about anything at all. Precision123 is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with all of the evidence without prejudice and using methods that will produce content that complies with Wikipedia's rules. Resolving the dispute requires participants to make content decisions based on all of the information available using Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and Precision123 is not doing that. There is no dependency on my participation. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention is that it's rather unusual, in my experience, for an editor in the ARBPIA topic area with Precision123's number of edits/account age to make such an effort to be seen to say the right things and exploit a wide range of noticeboards to try to get what they want while simultaneously making false statements about information and ignoring or demonstrating an aversion to subsets of reliably sourced information. Precision123's behavior incorporates a number of elements that in ARBPIA can indicate that an editor has an undisclosed editing history, that they are avoiding a block or a topic ban and have learned to exploit Wikipedia more effectively to achieve their objectives. I don't know whether that is the case here but I would like Precision123 to say whether they have used any other accounts to edit Wikipedia and declare those accounts. For example, Precision123 shares a number of statistically improbable attributes with indefinitely blocked user Shamir1. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, Pluto2012, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, and IRISZOOM are all Islamic/Arab nationalist editors whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is promote an anti-Israeli/pro-"Palestinian" agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.190.113.226 (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment. The fact that you are apparently unable to detect from my edits that I am what could reasonably described as a fundamentalist atheist who doesn't even believe in freedom of religion and that I have almost nothing but contempt for all religions and all forms of nationalism, including Palestinian nationalism, and all identity politics, which I regard as pointless divisive nonsense, is a good thing. Almost every edit I make in Wikipedia is writing for the enemy. It's quite easy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Awe, I feel left out, or maybe he's finally realized I'm actually a white agnostic. Sepsis II (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland and Sepsis II are Muslims who constantly promote Arab lies. As they even admit here, they seek to deny the existence of the Jewish homeland so that Jews remain dispersed as oppressed slaves throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.24.173 (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, if Sean.hoyland was against "Palestinian" nationalism, then he wouldn't promote the Arab nationalist lie that there is such thing as a "State of Palestine," and he would agree that the Arabs don't deserve a 22nd state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.24.173 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish people are "dispersed as oppressed slaves throughout the world". WTF are you on about? See WP:FRINGE. Your political views may exclude you from this site, just as the views of your opponents may exclude them. Maybe 2,000 years ago, under the Pharaoh, the Jewish people were enslaved. Now? Not so much... Doc talk 08:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at what happens when people with an aversion to reflecting the content of reliable sources on the issue of a State of Palestine such as Precision123 or yourself meet editors who are here to build an encyclopedia (see User_talk:Sunray#Mediation). You are wasting your time. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Now, back to more sensible matters, block evasion. I gave Precision123 an opportunity to respond to my question about declaring previous accounts here but they declined the opportunity and deleted the message. This is unfortunate because I had hoped that they had the good sense to provide open and honest answers which would, in my view, put them in a better position to perhaps negotiate for the indefinite block currently in place on the Shamir1 account to be changed to an WP:ARBPIA topic ban, a position I would have supported. Precision123 is an editor who can benefit Wikipedia but not in ARBPIA. Now resources are going to be wasted submitting and processing an SPI report with the likely outcome that an editor who could improve Wikipedia content outside of the areas where they have trouble following policy, will probably be blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Arab lies" are what the IP is accusing multiple editors of. That pretty much sums the level of ignorance for me with this user. Doc talk 09:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's probably not their fault. When a family member died, someone who, at least on paper, was a Catholic, there was a conundrum. When it was explained to the priest that he had been a communist in his youth, the priest said 'weren't we all ?' Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jews are oppressed and persecuted throughout the world by Muslims like Sean.hoyland. See Antisemitism in Europe. They are fleeing France to Britain to escape the Muslim immigrants. Doc9871, I am not PrecisionNumberWhatever, but you do not believe that Sean.hoyland is posting Arab lies? Pretty much every article having to do with Israel is filled with Arab propaganda bashing and demonizing Israel and denying Jewish history and the existence of Judea. See Antisemitism in the Arab world. Arab propaganda is evil and virulent and needs to be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.24.173 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC) The Israeli topic area on Wikipedia is dominated by a select few people who use a secret Electronic Intifada-sponsored mailing list to promote Arab nationalist propaganda on Wikipedia.110.4.24.173 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

And as the IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE for any purpose other than to make personal attacks, the IP has been blocked 48h. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Concern about User:Drsjpdc editing in violation of his unban agreement

In January 2010, Drsjpdc (talk · contribs) was permanently site banned from Wikipedia for having demonstrated a consistent record of working to promote his own POV regarding chiropractic, rather than maintaining the proper NPOV.

Later, in June 2010, he wrote an open letter to the community requesting that he be unbanned. At that time, he stated:

Open letter to the Wiki Community;

I would like to apply to end the ban on my editing privileges, so that I can make constructive contributions to the general body of knowledge on Wikipedia.

I certainly admit that I made some typical newbie errors when I began editing, and those errors came back to roost, even when I started making constructive edits and articles. Most certainly, I realize it must have seemed to all of you, like I was trying to promote myself, (though I promise that was not my purpose) when I initially started, and, as I said, that impression made it nearly impossible for anything else I did to be seen as anything other then POV when editing in the area of my profession. So, for that I have no one to blame but myself, and I am truly sorry.

If the ban is lifted, I propose to make edits only in areas not related to Chiropractic or alternative health, until such time as the community should see fit to permit me do so.

Д-рСДжП,ДС 15:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, he communicated with Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) to plead his case, and Jimbo endorsed his plea to be unbanned. Amazingly, the community agreed with Jimbo, and Drsjpdc was [unbanned, presumably with the understanding that he would keep his promise to avoid the topic of chiropractic and alternative medicine altogether. Discounting edits regarding OurMed.org (a site now defunct, so I can't assess its focus), Drsjpdc took exactly 31 days before he violated his promise. Admittedly, his infractions were minor at first: updating the president of an organization, adding some names to the list of notable chiropractors, etc. Nothing that could be considered controversial, but still, a violation of his self-imposed exile from topics related to chiropractic that was the basis of his unbanning. His foray into the World Chiropractic Alliance article in June 2011 represents the beginnings of some non-trivial changes in the area of chiropractic, adding his own POV regarding this organization with whom he had apparent differences.

His subsequent editing history shows greater and greater involvement in the areas of chiropractic and sports medicine. Although he never vowed to remove himself from the sports medicine field, he has always shown a decided POV and self-promotional tendency in this area, and policing his activities in this area has long been the bane of other editors.

Now, in 2014, we find ourselves policing him again on articles such as Chiropractic oath, Chiropractic professional ethics and Association of Chiropractic Colleges. (That last one was a doozy, as I can personally attest as the editor who cleaned it up. He basically wrote an ad for the association and its conferences, including a "why you should attend" section.)

He wrote at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard that he was the victim of a "...movement to obtain the community ban against me" and that the whole affair was "so vicious and unfair, that Jimmy Wales himself felt it appropriate to intercede to get the ban removed." I am not privy to the email communications between Drsjpdc and Jimmy Wales, but based on Jimbo' endorsement of his plea to be unbanned, I would be hard-pressed to call this "intercession" on his part. It's not like Jimbo went to the arbcom and said "You have to remove the ban on Dr Press because he's just the nicest guy ever." Drsjpdc emailed Jimbo, and Jimbo endorsed his appeal, but ultimately, it was the community that unbanned him.

Drsjpdc further wrote, in the same post the WP:FTN,

As I promised then, I have refrained from working in this field for four years. How long does the stigma remain???

Since Drsjpdc's original plea included the promise to "make edits only in areas not related to Chiropractic or alternative health, until such time as the community should see fit to permit me do so," the stigma remains until the rest of the community decides to lift it, which it has not. The original community ban was not temporary, but permanent. That ban was only lifted because Drsjpdc promised to avoid these topics, because he has demonstrated repeatedly that he is unable to maintain the proper neutrality on them. But now, here he is again, behaving in a non-neutral fashion, and blaming the rest of the community for his woes.

I believe the community should reimpose the ban (or at the very least, a topic ban) on Drsjpdc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Unban" agreement was with Jimmy Wales, who had to intercede, after I was viciously attacked by this same group of narrow minded people. save you all the trouble. I resign as an editor. I'm gone\. You win... happy? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС}

I suggest blocking the account anyway, to ensure that he's really gone. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Although their departure is a tad diva-ish and definitely childish, that aside @Drsjpdc: should have been reminded that the condition to return was effectively a voluntary topic ban from all articles related to Chiropractic backed by a requirement for a community review to lift that ban. As it stands, there was no request for a community review and as such their voluntary topic ban was still in force. Their first infraction should have seen the indef block dropped back on to them, but 2010 was a different kettle of fish to today. Blackmane (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Even though the user claims to have left, I think re-applying the indef block is a good idea; they've shown that they aren't to be trusted at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• As the violations of the topic ban were repeated and unrepentant, I've imposed an indefinite block regardless of the flounce. Whether or not the WP:CBAN should be reimposed is, of course, up to the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban I think being blocked from wikipedia as a whole is something which could be removed at a future date since there is no evidence of issues outside chiropractic (as far as I am aware), but a topic ban should remain firmly in place. I engaged with this editor here specifically: [2], and the comparisons of a chiropractic oath being comparable to the Hippocratic Oath were illogical and unambiguously clear POV pushing/trolling. Second Quantization (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban - I think the re-application of the indef block means this is a de-facto ban; but it needs returning back to the state it was in January 2010. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Range block on 210.55.212.?

I'm not sure that I know how to apply a range block, but one might be appropriate for a number of IPs beginning 210.55.212. There's a lot of similar vandalism coming from these IPs at the moment. See, for example, Chicago, Salem, Oregon, and Columbus, Ohio. Thanks—Jeremy (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a /19 dial-up (210.55.192.0/19) range operated by a major New Zealand telecommunications company. From what I can gather and remember it's a fairly major ISP in NZ so probably best to semi protect the three articles rather than block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

After I semi'd 8 articles and placed short blocks on a few of the IPs that got used more than once it stopped. I notice that many of the IPs were used for a similar widespread attack a few months ago.—Jeremy (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

While there's an ongoing attack there shouldn't be too much of an issue with rangeblocking it for a short time (eg 12 hours). It's the same as blocking an IP except you put 210.55.192.0/19 into the IP or username field and you don't leave a block notice on their talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a number of these but all have been in the /24 space and not the /19 so unless addresses other than 210.55.212.0/24 (<== this is what should be used when blocking) are being used only block the potential 253 IPs in the /24 subnet. If this keeps up, ping me and I'll block the range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: The ISP has a /19 range, so in theory they could use another of the IPs of their ISP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:ANRFC

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

---

There is a significant backlog at at WP:ANRFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Duolicate pages

Resolved

 – They've been blocked from an SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Chund bhawana jhang sader and User:Altafnaul are duplicate--Musamies (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse

Are there any administrators left to clerk around this particular page? Seems like it could do with a little cleaning up, since it's linked so obscurely at the top of this page, but the serious reports and work associated with it stopped sometime in August of 2010. There are probably a few more entries in Category:Long-term abuse, but judging from RecentChangesLinked there doesn't seem to be a lot of maintenance or monitoring of new entries. I note from latest activity that Zhoban is still on the main page and Wikipedia:Long-term abuseSarahTHunter‎ probably has a wrong title. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think WP:DENY has come into force more and more these days, so LTA cases aren't regularly listed up there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved Wikipedia:Long-term abuseSarahTHunter to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/SarahTHunter (a conventional subpage). Miniapolis 22:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I tagged that one under CSD G10, because the named user has never been blocked, there is no evidence of there being any sockpuppetry, or even of any abuse (let alone long-term). I've also posted a message on the filing editor's talk page about it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We still need the administrators or checkusers to clerk around that page though. If it's determined to be a project that is no longer of any relevance to improving Wikipedia, and has been abandoned, I suppose we could mark it as {{historical}} then. And it's linked to in the navbox at the top of this page, which is how I got to it in the first place; if it's not really still of any interest to administrator action, I'd think it would have been removed by now.

@Administrators: Do you still clerk around that page, or do you think it should be put into the Category:Inactive project pages? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There are those of us non-admins who still add to several of the sub-pages, so I would be opposed to deep-sixing it. BMK (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the creation of new LTA pages has been on the decline for some time with a more WP:RBI approach becoming prevalent. I support that trend, but some of these persons are still active and there is always the possibility of new entries for those obsessive types for whom RBI is not a sufficient remedy. That being the case I would oppose marking this as historical or otherwise "closing" it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also aware of at least two pages currently in userspace that document cases of long-term abuse but have never properly been moved to LTA-space, so I assume it is not a unique occurence and it might explain the decline. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Closers will be needed

This discussion (not an RfC) could contentious enough to merit some forethought and discussion by the closer(s). Please see WP:VPR#Restrict A class usage, and sign up if you like at WP:VPR#Asking for closers. The discussion started on 13 Feb. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD closure

Resolved

Could another admin please close at TfD, it's been open for a couple of weeks and there looks to be a consensus. Given it's currently a matter of discussion at User talk:Callanecc/Archive 10#Kwamikagami I'd rather get another opinion than do it myself. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Awful article!

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.

---

Read this article: Hong Kong Kids phenomenon. This is awfully written. It is written as if a pissed off kid wrote it. Really bad. --Civivlaospei (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So fix it already. We're all waiting to see what good work you do on that article. --Jayron32 20:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Scott Martin

I'm requesting assistance from administrators to establish an interaction ban disallowing Scott Martin from making further comments like [3]. I found it very disruptive to the conversation and somewhat harassing. The discussion/RfC on whether that section of Signatures should be policy or not was not the proper place for a comment about editor conduct. After I respectfully ask him to desist in the discussion about me and his perception of my conduct and telling me that I shouldn't voice my opinion on the matter, he follows up with [4] admitting that he is aware there is no topic ban on the topic for me, and includes "This has been a notably problematic area for you in the recent past." I'm not sure what he considers "recent", but I surely do not consider anything that hasn't resurfaced as an issue in six months (it has been ten and a half months since the 29.5 hour block) as recent.

What I have done since the block was lifted.

Since that time, I've accumulated a balanced 18K edits through-out article, talk, user (mostly development of user scripts that I use to assist with other projects), user talk, and template spaces. I'm an account creator, I'm an active template editor (one of a handful that responds to edit requests), I've just a little bit of my "final exam" to complete to officially a be CVU certified anti-vandal (although my activities in that aspect far outweigh this achievement), I'm an AfC developer and have dabbled in reviewing core changes on Gerrit and am an avid Bugzilla contributor. I also monitor the fully protected edit requests despite not being an admin. Of those, I've declined a few, request the protection level on others be lowered to a level that I can fulfil the request, left comments to improve the request (like suggesting to the requester to add this or that or add an RS that I've found on my own), and left others completely alone if there is nothing I can do to help or improve them and they are reasonable requests... There was no justification for that comment, and there was no justification for the continuation of comments on that page about editor conduct.

Yes, I'm frustrated because this comment comes on the heals of Bugzilla:4676#c47 which is another case of him telling me that I'm not allowed to contribute and participate in discussions because he has no clue what I'm talking about. On a Bugzilla ticket, that is also inappropriate behaviour to discuss editor conduct as an email gets sent out for every post to everyone CCed on the topic. He was then told that I was technically right, and that he should lay off a bit by Chris McKenna (of whom I can not seem to find the enwp account to notify of this discussion) in comment 48 to which Scott told him that he was misquoting what was said (c49) and Andre, in c50 had to explain to Scott that Bugzilla tickets are not the place for that kind stuff.

Now, on the flip side, I appreciated Scott's comment on my talk page a couple weeks ago (and I've made sure that he was thanked for this).

In summary, the actionable request I am making here of the administrators is to inform Scott that editorial conduct comments do not belong in RfC discussions especially when requested to stop and to take it to the user's talk page or a more appropriate forum such as here or AN/I or wherever else such discussions are appropriate. I don't mind discussing my actions, as long as it is the proper venue. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite eager to disallow Scott Martin from doing any manner of things, but you'll need to condense that into something readable before I can support such a notion in a credible way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Demiurge1000, I tried to keep it as short as I could and break it into sections to make it more readable. disruptive comment, request for comments about editor conduct moved away to an appropriate venue, refusal to do so, similar - conduct - on - bugzilla. I think this about sums it up. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think he's a bad man, but less bad than most. Would you like to work on a RFC/U with me? I certainly don't promise that it will end well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sure Demiurge1000, RfC/U would probably be the better place to discuss this, I can just never seem to remember that one with all of the noticeboard anagram soup for some reason. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page or on IRC to discuss it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• On IRC? I think not. Do you understand why some people find such an invitation troubling? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I meant it on whichever made you more comfortable, my talk page or IRC, I don't care... If my talk page (or yours for that matter) is more comfortable for you, that's fine. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• The first comment you've linked seems like a very reasonable suggestion to me. If a user has had issues leading to block in the past concerning a specific topic (i.e.: signatures), then it might be wise for them not to get involved in the same area again. I also find it weird that most of your "complaint" above actually revolves around you and your work, as if you're trying to convince someone to hire you. The fact that your nearly CVU-certified and an AfC developper is completely irrelevant if what you mean to do is spark discussion about alleged misbehaviour by another editor. I also don't think he's a "bad man" by anything conventional definition, and would be delighted to marry my sister to him, had I a sister. Perhaps T13 and Demiurge should do as they suggest and take this to RFC/U if they really think it is justified, because, let's be frank, this AN won't result in anything but fucking useless Wikidrama. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sal, while I don't disagree with your assessment there, when the block was nearly a year ago, and the user has contributed many times dealing with that topic in a constructive manner since then, and specifically has asked the user making the suggestion on multiple occasions not to make such comments in forums not about that users conduct, it borders on harassment and disruptive behavior. That section about me and my work (which I've collapsed) was in response to Scott's claim that I've "recently" caused troubles or disruption, which I have not (I've not had time to since I've been so busy with all of those other projects). I was actually really hesitant to bring it up here, as I agree, the results of discussion here are often unproductive wikidrama, but I felt it needed to be brought up someplace because I do not want such comments disrupting and throwing future discussions off-topic (which we all know some stupid silly little thing like this does all too often and all too easily). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I decided to read On the road this week, so addressing people as "Sal" is confusing! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm especially agreeable to being called "Salv", if that's better for you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't find this discussion particularly productive, and I highly recommend we find something better to do. That said, I ask that all future participants in Bugzilla tickets to please read and observe Bug management/Bugzilla etiquette from mediawiki.org. This is not a comment on anyone in particular... TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• I remember the saga with Technical 13's signature stuff, and I am quite disappointed that they are using fairly underhanded measures like this in order to try and silence any reference to it. Editorial conduct comments are valid anywhere bar article space; in this case, they are entirely valid, because it was issues with T13's signature that lead to the original drama in the first place, and the sorts of issues are exactly what this segment is designed to tackle. I suggest this thread is either withdrawn, or closed by an uninvolved editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, they are not; they don't belong on article talk per WP:TPYES, they're not tolerated at WP:DRN, just to name two examples They don't belong on policy discussion pages, either. NE Ent 03:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• DRN, OK, but article talk pages are valid places for certain types of conduct discussions/mentions (COI discussions/disclosures), and they do most definitely belong on policy discussion pages, as long as they are relevant to the policy being discussed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for unblock: Swiss National Library

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

---

Some background information: Swiss National Library (talk · contribs) was an account created 30 January 2014 in order to help with one of the Wikimedia Foundation's GLAM outreach projects, see Wikipedia:GLAM for details on this. The reason they have done so under a shared account, as explained by Micha L. Rieser (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia talk:GLAM was because of the concept of corporate personhood, and the desire to attribute all contributions associated with the account to the organization and its free license. On 4 February 2014, JohnCD (talk · contribs) blocked the account under the Wikipedia:NOSHARE policy, and it was reviewed here where it was found to be an appropriate block under current policy. JohnCD's block was entirely appropriate at the time, and I would like to make clear that I do not dispute it as it was then.

But after having had time to review the contributions of this account, spread across German Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons, I believe that this block and the policy behind it is actively discouraging a potential contributor from improving Wikipedia. I've given a little bit of the explanation here as well. Therefore, I wish to invoke Ignore all rules for this block, which states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, a policy even if properly applied is harming the English Wikipedia. I would like to make a temporary exemption of this GLAM account, and then immediately afterwards we would revisit and review the NOSHARE policy in the future, to see if it needs further adjusting, or if a permanent exemption could be made for certain organizational accounts. If discussion of the NOSHARE policy proves fruitless, with no consensus toward exempting such accounts, then we could reinstate the block against Swiss National Library (talk · contribs). TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Due to the licensing agreement and copyright/attribution aspects, wouldn't this be more of a WMF Legal decision rather than an admin decision? Rgrds. --64.85.216.32 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As you may have seen on the GLAM talkpage, there was a link back to outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/January 2014/Contents/Switzerland report which claims that the organization in charge of the Swiss National Library account have already filed an OTRS ticket to the German Wikipedia. I assume that this is sufficient information to prove that these edits can be linked definitively back to the actual organization; that is, the account name and the organization are one and the same. If the concern was about determining which user should be attributed while operating the account at any particular time, Rieser demonstrated that the attribution was legally necessary to ensure the organization gave permission to license its own contributions under Wikipedia's license. Individual users within the organization, rather than the organization itself, may choose to license their own contributions differently. Rieser also gave the example of an IP address, like yourself, which has edits attributed to multiple people, according to whoever has the IP address at any particular time. And if the concern overlaps with accountability, Rieser has suggested that particular users operating the account name, if engaging in discussion on Wikipedia talkpages, sign with their real name, whilst also on behalf of Swiss National Library. I think that, given this extensive explanation and accommodation by Rieser and company, we should give this account a little more leeway. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this should belong better in the RFC discussion, but I'd like to reexamine the spirit of the blocking policy for starters. In an ideal sense, the block tool is meant as a last resort to prevent possible disruption to Wiki(p/m)edia's mission. There are two different but related targets of using a block: 1) against a possibly disruptive account as a technical measure, and 2) against the person (or in this case group of people) operating the account directly. The latter is more often referred to as a ban. So far, the account has not shown any promotional behavior or violation of COI that I know of, and has even managed to work peacefully within the German Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons communities without problems. We can therefore rule out #1. Then perhaps it is the nature of the organization that is under question here; in a sense, the organization itself is "banned", but not its individuals. Rieser has indicated the need for the account's contributions to be attributed directly to the organization, due to licensing considerations. He also suggested that for the shared account to participate in discussions, any member operating it at any particular time must also sign with the initials of their real life name, thereby ensuring more transparency and accountability than most of the pseudonymous editors here. If the account itself is proving problematic in other areas such as COI, then the account itself can be blocked. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I raised this question at WT:GLAM#Usernames for GLAM participants and offered there to start an RFC on a change in the WP:NOSHARE policy if there was evidence that there would be support, specifically support from other people engaged in GLAM activity. I was particularly looking for statements from existing GLAMmers such as Wikimedians-in-residence that this would help their operations, but none have come forward to say that, and as far as I know this is the first time any GLAM institution has made it a requirement.

The policy against institutional shared accounts is not peculiar to en-wp: on it-wp the SNL account has also been blocked as "Nome utente inappropriato: ente istituzionale", and on fr-wp, though the account has not been blocked, an administrator has advised them here of a preference for individual accounts. Even if we make an exception for them, insisting on using a shared account will make it difficult for SNL to contribute cross-wiki,

The NOSHARE policy is long-standing. The last proposed exception, for couples editing together, was decisively rejected at this RfC in 2012, and I think it unlikely that a GLAM exception would be agreed in the absence of strong support from other GLAMmers. That being so, it would be a mistake to make a one-off IAR exception for the SNL account now, leading to a re-block with consequent ill-feeling later. An RFC should come first. JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As the GLAM newsletter points out, the German WP accepts corporate accounts, once oTRS has been convinced the account is genuine. We could avoid a great deal of complications by doing likewise. We have the authority to do so in any particular case via IAR, and I think we should use it, An RfC would be appropriate, so we can make it a general rule. Accepting an obviously helpful special case for a very important partner would be the first step in this, to get accustomed to the idea. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support IAR for use of this account, as limited by other behavioral and editorial policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support IAR for this account, and also support a discussion about how to adjust our standard practice to cope with WP:SUL-related reality. These kinds of accounts have been accepted for a long time at some projects, and if they make an account with a "legal" account name there, then they automatically have the same account name here. So the question becomes, do you want one user to maintain separate accounts (and woe betide the poor image-uploader who forgets to log in and log out every time they switch from Commons to en.wp), or do you want greater transparency (e.g., it's trivial to figure out that the uploader is the one adding it to the article)? And how could we reduce the practical problem with (actual) shared accounts (as opposed to accounts that have a corporate name, but are operated by a single human), which is people claiming that their little brother/classmate/co-worker is the one that screwed up and/or read the warning you posted last week? (I'm thinking that we reduce the problem by telling them that we don't care who read it, they're all responsible for knowing what the other guy did. Also, it'd be nice if they'd tell us when the account changes hands.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose the use of IAR to make a single exception here, but I support an RfC on this policy, and would incline to support modifying it so as to make this and simialr institutional accoutns legitimate. I agree with JohnCD above, it is best to come to consensus on the rule, rather than to make a one-off exception. If This was done via IAR, any admin could later re-block and point to the existing policy to justify such action. DES ^(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In retrospect, I should probably have included some huge disclaimers at the top for the TL;DR folks, like:
  • DISCLAIMER: This block review is not meant as a reflection on JohnCD's actions, nor his good standing as an administrator.
  • DISCLAIMER: This particular case is not meant to create precedent for allowing such future accounts, although it may be referenced in the RFC as an example why the NOSHARE policy is problematic. If the RFC results in no consensus, upholding NOSHARE or anything otherwise, we can easily reblock the account. In particularly egregious cases, like if the account were to edit the article on Swiss National Library, we can always reblock for COI. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: your first disclaimer is quite unnecessary, your proposal was most courteously worded and I did not in the least take offence. With regard to the second, this may not be intended as a precedent, but how do we explain to the next applicant why this case was special and theirs is not? Also, I am not so sure that we could "easily reblock the account": there would be another row and more calls for IAR to let them continue. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Allow all accounts to be shared, limited types of accounts to be shared or no accounts to be shared. It is a slippery slope here to allow one account to be shared. The next unblock request will reference this and ask why that account and not ours? Ravensfire (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ignoring the policy and allowing a shared institutional account. Determine if there's a consensus to change the policy, in which case "Joe's Burger Stand," "Hungadunga High School," "Greasepit Motorcycle Club" or "University of Michigan Football Fans" could also send in an OTRS ticket showing that the account really represents the organization in question, then share the logon among all the members. No convincing case has been presented that "IAR" is appropriate here. Edison (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, although this really is a proposal that belongs at the Village Pump. The big problem with role accounts is copyright compliance: when multiple people are using the same account, there's not a single author who can be credited. Here, we have an OTRS confirmation that this account is being used by people who work for the same entity: their edits are all basically works for hire, owned by the Swiss National Library. Since the Library's willing to release its rights to these edits under GFDL/CC, we really don't have any reason to object. Response to Ravensfire: when the next unblock request comes, we'll need them to confirm through OTRS that all edits from the account are works for hire for the organisation that's sending the OTRS. If they can't or won't do that, we tell them that the situation's different, so we can't unblock. Finally, DESiegel, since we're having a discussion about the situation, this isn't quite the same as a random admin reblocking: if we choose to unblock this account, the reblocking admin will be going against consensus on this specific situation. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In response to Nyttend's comments (and to some extent Thincat's), if this becomes an established practice, we would need to have some sort of procedure for the organization to confirm that it will control the account, that it will have responsibility for all edits, and assume accountability for what is done with the account, and that all people using the account have signed a work-made-for-hire agreement or something similar. Some of the details of such a policy would probably need to be vetted by WMF legal, but no need to involve them until we decide, as a matter of policy, that we want to do this at all. The we can ask them how to make it work. DES ^(talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, I think that might be a process that works, but we're talking about a policy. I would support a change in the user policy to allow shared accounts with appropriate restrictions and notifications. Some thought needs to be given on how to handle blocks on such an account (if I use a group account that gets blocked, does that also affect my personal account). Even with the best of intentions, I uncomfortable with something like this without a larger discussion. I don't think blanket approval to shared accounts is acceptable, but non-profit, non-advocacy groups I don't have a problem with. Ravensfire (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest consulting User:WMF Legal about whether it is appropriate to have shared accounts. Thincat (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Good block. One person = one account is a cornerstone of WP; allowing exceptions would degrade the 'pedia's integrity. With shared accounts, it's impossible to assign responsibility for edits. Miniapolis 23:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support like named accounts such as Swiss National Library1 (talk · contribs) and Swiss National Library2 (talk · contribs). This, I think, addresses all of the issues raised. If User:WMF Legal weighs in with an opinion to allow a single account, we can go with that. But if not my suggestion provides a reasonable alternative that could make all parties happy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For this particular account, on principle per WP:ISU. The username and account policies are not currently set up for something like this, and I would object to an IAR unblock. As has been already been mentioned, if we allow this then we have to explain to User:Joe's Super Crab Shack why we are blocking them under our apparent double standards - without the benefit of a clearly spelled-out policy or guideline. There are also attribution, licensing and legal issues that can and will get complicated. In any case, accounts named "Becky at Swiss National Library" and so on would be certainly acceptable under current policy, and I think would be preferable anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  If the issue is that's a double standard, then clearly it's the policy page that is the problem and preventing us from improving Wikipedia proper, which is why I've decided to invoke IAR. The RFC designed to change the policy to meet this practice would follow immediately after unblocking the account, referencing it as an example of the problem with the policy page itself and why it needs revising - and then we can finally get around to explaining why this shared account is allowed and others are not. Right now, it is my belief that the block is harming Wikipedia's mission. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I have sympathy for the argument that a GLAM organization should be an exception, but apart from the problems mentioned above, my concern is that an organization that insists that their work must be done their way is not likely to be helpful in the long run. They have their rules that say "Joe at Swiss National Library" is not acceptable, and likewise we have good reasons for our procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:NOSHARE hooks into the principle of being a free encyclopedia and who to attribute information to. Also, I see no problem whatsoever with having 10 or however many personal accounts which all openly and clearly disclose their connection to the Swiss library. They can all edit in name of the Swiss Library, and even can hold legitimate alternate accounts for different editing. I agree with Johnuniq's solution that they can use 'User:Joe' for personal editing, and 'User:Joe at Swiss National Library' - if the latter is against their internal policies, then by all means, let other users do the work for them - they do not have an obligation to edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support' Because account names like 'User:Becky at Swiss National Library' don't work. I can create an account 'user:Micha at White House'. This account does not guarantee that I actually am authorized to edit in the name of the White House. Or maybe the name 'Joe at Swiss National Library' is not just a fake account. Joe maybe works actually in the library but as a member of the cleaner team. The community can still not be sure that Joe's opinion and actions reflect the meaning of the library and that he is authorized to speak in the name of the library. - An account of the library solves a lot of problems. It is an official account which is actually authorized to contribute to wikimedia/wikipedia. - For other company accounts two simple rules would solve the problem of PR and POV: No substantial changes are allowed in the encyclopedic namespace and no contributions are allowed on their own article at all. We would accept this two rules without difficulty and other GLAM account would be able to accept that also. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Look, we have some people from the Swiss Library here, obviously - if some editor in Far Far Away would think to be funny and create a username 'John Doe from Far Far Away at Swiss National Library', then the other Swiss Library editors (who could identify themselves officially) would directly say that that editor is not from the Swiss National Library - and that would IMHO be an immediate indefinite block for that John Doe. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • But how do you know the other Swiss Library editors are themselves genuine? They could be from Mars for all we know. John Doe would just come back and say they're the real editor, and claim the others are false. What do we have but their word and hearsay? On the other hand, the organizational account Swiss National Library has OTRS-identified to the German Wikipedia. That's more accountability than the numerous pseudonyms we got floating around here. Would you trust me if I said my real name was TeleComNasSprVen? Would you even take me less seriously? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Isn't that what OTRS is for, indeed. If User:John Doe at Swiss National Library is claiming that User:Jane Doe at Swiss National Library is not connected to Swiss National Library, then that has to go through the official channels, and if User:Jane Doe at Swiss National Library is not connected but claiming to edit on their behalf (and editing information related to Swiss National Library) then that is IMHO a blockable offense. If User:Swiss National Library is OTRS confirmed, then they can also confirm individual editors for that - there is no need to share. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
        • 1) If John Doe or Jane Doe don't work for the library anymore that specific accounts should be blocked. Because they are not allowed to speak for the library anymore. So actually there is a need to supervise that accounts. That wouldn't be necessary if you would accept accounts for GLAM. 2) The community has not the possiblity to see which is the next responsible person for that organisation. So they have no single point of contact and do not know who is responsible for a request. The whole thing (OTRS, official confirmation of the library, etc.) has to repeat by a new account. Otherwise there would be only an announcement on the user page of the GLAM account that the responsible person has changed. 3) The copyright law of the most countries also accept that an originator can be a corporate personhood. I recommendend to tle library that we make the people behind this account transparent but for the licence it is not necessery. The National Library as an organisation can make a proper edit here under this CC-licence. It is simply the community which has a problem with the fact that there are such things like organisations or corporate personhoods that also could/would edit here. But why you have problems with that fact? I do not completely understand. 4) We as wikipedians have told the GLAM that we are interested in an collaboration and that they should share their media with us and create a long-term relationship with us. It was not the library which had first the motivation to come to Wikipedia. That needed a lot of discussion and arguments before so that they were in the end convinced that sharing on Wikipedia is a good thing from their perspective too. And now they see that the english Wikipedia just says to them: Fuck off. Do you really think that helps to build Wikipedia and promote the project? --Micha 13:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Bad idea (that's oppose). Let's say we do this and joe editor comes across it and knows it's against policy, so they file at WP:UAA. Now what happens? Either an admin who missed the discussion here blocks and causes a ruckus, or doesn't block and politely tells the user it's a "special exception" or freaks out 'cause there's some note on the user page joe editor missed -- so what's joe editor do the next time they see a sketchy username? (If they're like me, they're gonna say "Not my problem.") Long story short, lots wasted time for no particularly good reason. Accounts are cheap and easy to create. NE Ent 00:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

However, I do see an issue here, in that the Wikimedia meta:Unified Login policy conflicts with English Wikipedia's no role account policy, which I understand conflicts with German Wikipedia's. So we do probably need to change that rule, but we need to do it in a across the board coherent manner, rather than a one off ad hoc way. NE Ent 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My aim of the newsletter report was to initate the discussion about rules and about the requirements for working together with GLAMs. But an exceptional case of that account could also be a good test case and an example how further collaboration with GLAM accounts could work in the english wikipedia. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is likely to come up again and again; is anyone actively working on drafting an RfC? 28bytes (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @28bytes: Started draft in my userspace here and asked for more feedback at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for getting that started, I will take a look. 28bytes (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:NOSHARE is pretty clear; this is a no-no. If they're refusing to change their ways to edit here, why should we bend over backwards to let them edit? And how on earth do we know who is editing under this account? The answer is; we don't. For all we know, this could be a bunch of banned editors, or a group containing at least one banned editor... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose allowing this. The German Wikipedia have opened their door to corporate accounts - why should we? If they won't fit our rules, tough. I'm not sure that the reasons for them to be editing as a corporate person have been explained clearly enough, or what edits they are planning. Just what are they hoping to do that requires a corporate identity? Their editing must be subject to our usual requirements of referencing and copyright compliance - why should they not by subject to NOSHARE? As the above post points out, how do we know who has access? Quite a few of our banned and indeffed accounts belong to very intelligent people, one or more of whom could just work there. For those who can't view their deleted user page, I quote in part: "To the collections of the library belong more than five million documents. They are accessible for everybody. If you need help with your research about Switzerland then just ask us. This account won't take part to any encyclopedic work on the English speaking Wikipedia. Its aim is to provide a communication channel to the community, to facilitate collaboration around our projects." Deleted as advertising/promotion. Quite correctly. IMO. I see no need for any more than one account belonging to one person creating a neutrally worded article about the library, which can contain an external link to the library's site. If this is a genuine statement from the library, they don't need a corporate account as they are not going to edit. If it isn't, well then... Peridon (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblocking. I don't see anything wrong with a shared account being used to demonstrate editing to the site. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Policy prohibits shared accounts. If this is deemed problematic in this case, policy should be changed via consensus first, rather than exceptions made. The individuals affected can easily create their own accounts and link to their employer on their user page. I'm surprised that this is an issue here, as, in my experience, Swiss officials like having and following clear rules... By the way, this is not a corporate personhood issue, as the Swiss National Library is part of the federal administration of Switzerland, and does not have a legal identity distinct from the rest of the Swiss state.  Sandstein  20:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  Of course they have an own identity. --Micha 10:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC) To be exact: It is acutally a sub organisation of the federal administration. So this is correct. But to be clear: Actually the library has not the form of a corporate personhood because only private organisation like incorporated companies or other by law defined organisation are. But there is an identity because such suborganisation have their own responsiblities given by law. For example: The military which is also a suborganisation of de federal administration must not decide about the media of the National Library. The National Library is authorized to give copyright protected media under a licence like CC because the originators of that material gave this strictly to the Library by a legal contract. So in this case the National Library acts like an own personhood here. - But a lot of GLAMs are in fact nothing else than corporate personhoods. So it is not necessary to distinguish about that legal forms in Wikipedia. --Micha 11:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per policy. There's nothing preventing individuals from signing up to accounts and then forming a work-group or wiki-project so that related edits can be attributed to the organisation and work-group in particular. A broader question relates to what might happen if a researcher logged in to the account happens to read another article of personal interest and sees a typo they wish to change. Will they want that edit attributed to their employer or will they take the time to register a different account to make that and subsequent edits. The point is as an individual, the same concerns apply to a lesser extent. It just isn't a very good idea and there are a great many things that can be done to function in a collegial manner without sharing an account. Stalwart111 01:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As stated above: if they're not going to edit, they don't need an account. If they are going to edit, then they need to follow policy. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  There are talk pages. The community can stay in contact with this account with the talk page. The account can make recommendations and suggestions on talk pages of articles. There are a lot of different use cases where an account makes sense without the need to edit articles. --Micha 13:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha L. Rieser (talk • contribs)

  Editing a talk page is still editing. And the username policy is still policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose IAR solution as offered; probably oppose allowing a multiple account, per The Bushranger, Sandstein, Peridon, and others above, but that really is a discussion which has to happen more fully before the feeling of the community can be gauged. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think a discussion of our policy on corporate accounts is needed, and changing it may be justified. However, I can't support making a one-off exception; this should be done per policy, or it shouldn't be done at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Human rights in Iran

Can an administrator please temporarily delete and then undelete this page in order to move Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran? There was consensus found at Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran#Requested move February 2014 which require closure... TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As it currently stands, I don't see a strong enough consensus to perform the move. In addition, the discussion is still on going; I feel it is premature to make an "official call" at this point. Mike V • Talk 19:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Harvest Moon

Hello, I am current editing, Referencing, and imaging a current project for a Video game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgementwolf/Harvest_Moon:_Connect_to_a_New_World I need a help with writing it, but it also says I need an admin to do the Redirect to prevent vandalism. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgementwolf (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The article has been moved to Harvest Moon: Linking the New World by Salvidrim! Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. I moved Judgementwolf/Harvest Moon: Connect to a New World to Harvest Moon: Connect to a New World to fix the mistake done when moving it out of userspace. Then I redirected Harvest Moon: Connect to a New World to Harvest Moon: Linking the New World, which was an existing article on the same topic. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, apparently I'm having a bad day. I noticed some stuff with the edit logs but didn't pay that much attention so didn't appreciate what had happened. Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim Thank you for linking my page. I'm excited to have help with my first ever Wikipedia page.

Admin input on AfD dicussion?

Is it possible to get an admin to review and close this AfD discussion: [5]? A previous AfD on this topic ended inconclusively, and I was hoping that we could have closure that goes one way or the other. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ban question

Is there any mechanism, or any visible place, on-wiki where an interaction ban can be reported without the reporter himself being accused of violating the interaction ban? Or are such questions necessarily confined to off-wiki communications such as e-mails? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually, taking it up to AN/I or the admin who closed the ban discussion is the usual starting point. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BANEX.  Sandstein  20:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User 47 moving pages without good reason

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 unilaterally slapped a 24-hr block on User 47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for moving pages without good reason. I would be grateful if somebody else would look over my actions.

Next: how can we efficiently get those pages moved back to their proper places? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that Ezhiki (talk · contribs) is on the case. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I fully concur. There was neither an explanation nor a plausible good reason for doing these mass moves.

I've started moving the affected pages back; shouldn't take too long.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 24, 2014; 18:16 (UTC)

If anything, I'd say you were lenient. Indeffing as a vandalism-only account wouldn't be out of line, imo. Resolute 18:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Indef'd. DrKiernan (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) and me took care of all the pages in the move log. By the way, I haven't realized right away just how many pages were affected. Redrose, you may indeed have been too lenient with the block. We don't want to do this again in 24 hours :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 24, 2014; 18:37 (UTC)

Oh boy... TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:User 39 now. DrKiernan (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WTF?! How is that possible to move that many pages that quickly? Is there a quick way to move them all back? They all seem to have the same suffix. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

All fixed but that must have involved a script or similar to get edits of that speed... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked users 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, and 46. We need a checkuser for sleepers. DrKiernan (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, just spotted it was User 39 that appeared on my watchlist. The clever buggers. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• All of 47 have been fixed.
• Some of 39 have been fixed.
• None of 38 have been fixed.
• None of Mapswhets2 have been fixed. 70.134.226.55 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Sokker

I am requesting that sokker be made into a redirect to Association football. Sokker is a phonetic misspelling as well as the name in Afrikaans.Hoops gza (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kashmir Conflict

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kashmir Conflict.  MehrajMir (Talk) 17:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Identifying school IPs

Just to note that the eDNS link we use is now useless, but Geolocate actually isn't bad at identifying school IPs. I don't know if that's a change or if I have just been lucky with it recently. I always check IP addresses to see if they are schools, I've found some that have been around quite a while and blocked several times but not templated as educational addresses. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Request/Kevin Gorman Motion Passed

A motion that was proposed for the Arbitration Request initiated on February 17, 2014 has passed. The motion can be found here. The following is the text of the motion:

• The committee notes that it is not in dispute that User:Kevin Gorman has acted out of process and in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held.
• The committee notes and accepts Kevin Gorman's assurances that he has learned by his mistakes and will not repeat them.
• Kevin Gorman is strongly admonished.
• The request shall be filed as "Kevin Gorman".
• The request for a full case is declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Please delete duplicate page

User:Lizapren duplicate to page Thomas O. Melia, thanks--Musamies (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Users are allowed to have duplicate pages in their userspace. It looks like this user may have used it as a draft. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The draft is from 2010. It probably isn't needed now in 2014. Moreover, the userpage isn't being monitored for possible WP:BLP violations, so in an abundance of caution, I have blanked the page. This in no way signifies that Lizapren has done anything wrong. My action is mere housekeeping. I don't know if Lizapren is planning to edit Wikipedia in the future or not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock to contain sockpuppetry by 089baby (talk · contribs)

I would like to request a range block for all or part of the [36.37.0.0/16 range, which is being abuse by serial sockpuppeteer 089baby (talk · contribs). After repeatedly created new accounts for most of last year (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/089baby/Archive), he has now moved on to only using registered accounts for creating articles. The most obvious and recent example of this is 36.37.197.36 (talk · contribs), who has made almost all the edits to articles created by 089baby's most recent sock Nevercare12345 (talk · contribs). I'm positive that every IP in this range to have edited an article on a Cambodian football club and/or player this year is in fact being operated by 089baby. You'll note that in the 10 months prior, IP's from this range made only three edits to articles on Cambodian football. If you have any questions do not hesitate to ask. Thank you advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Toddst1 request for arbitration

The following motion proposed regarding the Toddst1 request for arbitration has been passed:

The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

[Moved from ANI] Possible interaction ban violation

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.

---

(Note that I mistakenly posted this at ANI, and have moved my post and Medeis' reply here. Apologies, I'm not a regular at these boards for a while) I have been asked by Medeis (talk · contribs) to confirm whether their responding to an WP:In the news nomination by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) as at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Matteo Renzi becomes new Italian PM is a violation of their interaction ban. There have been a few such incidents. I would value a second opinion. Stephen 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please post the diff(s) to the incident(s) to which you refer, Stephen.

Please note the other editor has voted in opposition to my nominations in the past, for example diff without my objection then or now, just as I am accused of here. Please note the other editor has acted directly on the same thread on which I have just commented, with no objection by me or any other user. diff

I quote the possible violations from WP:IBAN:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

I have not editted editor Y's user and user talk space. I have posted in discussions the same discussions as, but have not replied personally or by name to editor Y. I have not made reference to or commented on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly. I have not undone editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means), although he has undone mine and referred to me in his edit summary,diff even referring to me indirectly as an edit banned user a second time when he undid diff User:Spencer's edit.diff. Note that my hatting of that discussion was a standard housekeeping action on a thread that had been archived without a signature--neither a reversion, a reply to, or a reference to the other editor.

There's basically nothing to address here. I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved, and I don't see any reason for any restriction on my addressing such matters objectively without regard to the other editor. On occasion we disagree on the issue at hand. Neither of us has to address the other to do so. Frankly, I am curious why this matter has even come up. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ITN is not a one-way street. If someone makes a nomination, there should be no ban on anyone else commenting on the merits of the nomination. As far as I'm aware, no-one has commented on the nominators themselves, simply on the worthiness of items to be included in ITN and/or the quality of the nominated article(s). It appears that this is someone trying to fix something that isn't broken. The strictest adherence to the terms of the IBAN amount to a partial topic ban, which is an incompetently proposed outcome. On a similar note, could User:Stephen please take note of the BIG ORANGE EDIT NOTICE at the to of this page which clearly states : "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I must have missed my notification...

Still, nothing like a rainy Sunday to whip up some completely unnecessary dramaz. Can we get back to improving Wikipedia now please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

When attempting to investigate the purpose of all this, I inadvertently hit rollback on my watch list, here which I quickly re-rolled back here. I hope that this will be accepted as an honest mistake, or should I look forward to this being used to hang, draw and finally quarter me? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing as no violation. Medeis seemingly violated the ban by responding to TRM, and TRM seemingly violated it by rolling back someone's comment at Medeis' talk. TRM wants the situation re WP:ITN to be closed quietly, the rollback was quite obviously an error, and this discussion itself is not a violation, because one of the policy exceptions to interaction bans is "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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 take offense at it being said I "apparently" responded to the other editor (diff?). I responded objectively to the nomination, and intend to do so in the future without restriction, just as he has both supported and opposed nominations (without my objection) like his opposition to Sid Caesar's RD nomination, which I posted. Neither of us is subject to any topic block, actually personal comments and direct reversions excepted. I find it absurd to believe that the other editor went to my edit history, clicked on undo, and hit return to revert my response to a third party on my own talk page. That doesn't happen by accident. It requires three separate deliberate decisions. It had nothing to do with the issue he himself reported to user Stephen. Nevertheless, I still don't want the other editor blocked. I really don't care about these antics. But I refuse to accept this "finding" as of any future relevance to my own actions. I also agree with the other editor that this entire affair has been both causeless and irregular, given neither of us were notified, as required, of these proceedings. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand some of what you're talking about. "Apparently" appears just four times on this page right now: twice in the discussion about Sean Hoyland, once about something that was apparently communicated to Jimbo Wales, and once is your own comment right here. Please quote the statement that you're talking about, if you'd like any further comment from me; otherwise I'll stay confused. As far as the revert, I think you misunderstand the situation. TRM clicked the rollback button, not the undo (see the basic edit summaries for undo and rollback), and since rollback is a single click with no "Are you sure?" window, it's easy to make a mistake with that. And finally, as far as the "finding" bit, my point was that we're basically sweeping this under the rug on WP:IAR grounds. Unless I'm missing something, both of you technically violated the ban, but in a harmless way, and sanctions for either of you in this situation would be wildly inappropriate. If this were something that should be considered relevant in the future, I wouldn't have closed it this way: I would have blocked you and/or TRM, or issued a stern warning to one or both of you for making a mountain out of a molehill. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also TRM says they did it from their watchlist. Unlike 'undo', 'rollback' will normally appear in your watchlist if there's only one editor for whatever page so there's no need to visit anyone's contribution history nor the page's edit history. Not that undo shows up in the contribution history anyway (rollback will when it exists), it only shows up in the page history. On the other hand, I'm not really sure why TRM still has the user talk page of someone who they have an i-ban with on their watchlist. While perhaps not technically a violation, I would suggest it's time to remove it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to refresh your mind on how watch lists work. I have over 8,000 pages on my watch list, many dozens of them are those which are edited frequently by editors with whom this interaction ban is involved. Perhaps I'm assuming some basic level of competence in those who comment here, but on my watch list, I get the option to "rollback" every single edit, be it from Jimbo, an IP or anyone with whom I happen to have an interaction ban. For clarity, that's every single item on my watch list gives me the option to rollback. Clear enough? Clumsy fingers on an iPhone will sometimes lead to a rollback by accident, which I fixed immediately and "confessed" to here. You're all making a complete drama out of this, please, get a grip, all of you. The only people acting with any dignity here are those who have been subject to the interaction ban. What a perfect irony. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it how kindly you take my actions: you can misclick a rollback button, but you can't accidentally attack me as acting without dignity or accidentally attack someone with whom you're interaction banned. You've just narrowly avoided a block for the ban violation, and I'm seriously rethinking my decision to close the thread. I would strongly suggest that neither of you participate again in this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Get over yourself, don't threaten me. I attacked no-one (I certainly did not "accidentally attack someone with whom [I'm] interaction banned", moreover I appreciated her common sense approach, unlike the drama editors here), I simply stated that this drama festival is self-propogating. At least someone, a while back, had some sense to close it and move on. I suggest you do the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on any of this except to say that yes, it is quite easy to accidentally click rollback on an iPhone; I did it myself last week. I have no reason to believe that's not what happened here. 28bytes (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Watchlist confusion

Just want to apologise for the confusion above. A long time ago (I think), I turned on the "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" option. This shows all users who have recently edited a page, but turns off the rollback for any item which has multiple users. More recently when doing something I was checking my watchlist options and got the impression this behavior was the default. Unfortunately I relied on that memory when replying above rather than checking my options so I made a mistake when suggesting that the rollback will 'if there's only one editor for whatever page' (which is the case for me but not the default option).

BTW, for clarity, my comment "rollback will when it exists" is AFAIK, always accurate. Rollback will not always show up in someone's contribution history as it won't show up in a case where you can't roll back that edit, in particular when the edit is not the most recent.

However I thought my comment was clear, and still feel it is clear that I was not in any way suggesting that the rollback option did not exist for TRM. I simply stated that it doesn't always exist to try and avoid confusion and as I prefer to be accurate. Even if in this case I actually ended up making things worse because of a foolish mistake to not check my options. So despite the unfortunate confusion due to my error, I don't see any reason for hostility.

I also don't get the relevance of any of the rest of the commentary. I did not suggest that TRM remove any of the other 8000 pages from TRM's watchlist, simply that they remove μηδείς, BB and anyone else that they have interaction ban user and usertalk pages from their watchlist (which can be done via a simply click of a button AFAIK, even if you have 8000 pages on your watchlist).

Whenever else these people show up in their watchlist is somewhat besides the point. I was simply suggesting that since they shouldn't be doing anything to these pages anyway, it's a bit stalkery (and perhaps even pushing the limits of the iban) to be watching them. As they must be doing for μηδείς's talk page to show up in their watch list (which I understood and still understand to be the only way they could have accidentally rolled back something on μηδείς's talk page based on their description). TRM apparently disagrees [6], so be it.

I do apologise for the confusion relating to when rollback shows up. I also apologise for reopening this thread, I just feel I've been somewhat unfairly maligned for a polite suggestion and attempt to help clear up μηδείς's apparent confusion. But I won't apologise for the resonable suggestion that TRM remove from their watchlist the user page and user talk page of anyone they have an iban with.

Feel free to close this, I will not be commenting further even if there is further hostility for whatever reason.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a short list of topic bans, and in every case they are off my watch list. Out of sight, out of mind, and much less chance of violating the bans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech tip

I've had accidental rollback while using a tablet issues myself. Eventually I found that editing Special:MyPage/common.css and inserting

@media (max-width: 999px){
 .mw-rollback-link {display: none;}
}

removes the rollback option from appearing on mobile devices. (You may not need the 999px part, I just copy pasted from somewhere else (WP:VPT, maybe?) NE Ent 11:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to suggest adding that to WP:Rollback but it looks like that page already links to Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists#rollback, which offers a slightly different way to hide the link. 28bytes (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I use User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js, which pops up an "are you sure?" box when you click rollback from the watchlist. Be careful if you have a slow connection though, as it won't work if the JavaScript doesn't load. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's easy enough to mis-click rollback on a proper desktop, let alone a tiny phone/tablet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RfPP backlog

Page protection backlog is getting a bit long, if anyone has time to sort through some requests. Gloss • talk 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Still a backlog.. 33 requests unanswered. Gloss • talk 17:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Up to 44. Would a cookie help? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• And a nice glass of milk to wash it down?  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I did 31, and there's still 25 left to do. Moar mops plse, -- Diannaa (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's −38 °C (−36 °F), the wind is 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph), the wind chill is −57 °C (−71 °F) (must be winter is finally here) and I cleared the rest out. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Ryulong

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1

The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.

Motion 2

During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:

(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 17:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

SPI backlog of large proportion

WP:SPI is extremely backed up right now. Any and all admin help would be smiled upon. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would have helped if I had the tools. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Been thinking of applying for CU Clerk for some time... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed. I'm going to add SPI to my "things I'm working on" list. I won't be able to resolve this on my own, but I'll see if I can at least help, and hope some other admins familiar with waterfowl and footwraps might also help. -- Atama頭 23:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Sigh... About a half dozen or so closed, but that's just a drop in the bucket, could still use more help. -- Atama頭 19:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AN/RFC

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure currently has a bit of a backlog. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocking problem

I've posted about a seeming change in the Block user page over at VP/T. Might just be me, but could other admins have a look and comment there. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Has been sorted by WMF. Peridon (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

RFP backlog

Could the WP:RFP backlog please be looked at. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlog isn't too bad at all right now.. only about 12 unanswered requests. Gloss • talk 23:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's all a matter of opinion... JMHamo (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Please undelete Ebrahim Heshmat. I will expand it and add references. --,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sicaspi: You have to go to WP:DRV for the AfD to be reviewed. JMHamo (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that Sicaspi first approached Cirt, the admin who closed the AFD, and Cirt suggested coming here. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sicaspi, s was mentioned at the AfD, there is a copy of the article at Heshmat Taleqani. Just add your sources to it, quickly' It would be technically possible for someone to delete it also, but if sufficient good sources are added, it would meet the original AfD objection and keeping it should be uncontroversial. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Weird, so we had a content fork? Looks as if the same contents existed simultaneously under both titles. Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I had not noticed this nor had read the AFD thoroughly, this guy is mostly known as Ebrahim Heshmat Taleqani. May I move it? (Thank y'all for help) --,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Closers needed for contentious RM

Talk:Kosovo#Requested move is long and has accusations of offline canvassing amongst other problems. Can one or better three uninvolved admins take on the task of closing it carefully? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: open since 13 February 2014, article talk page has had 94 revisions by 31 users since it opened. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• What's the best way to deal with the offsite canvassing? bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to do it in the first place. Actually, most of the "support" votes are invited to that page by the offline canvassing this user ostensibly wants to "deals with". Do not be fooled! --200.54.92.187 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

200.54.92.187: perhaps you could log back into your account, instead of using an open proxy.

Everyone else: This is what we have to deal with on articles like Kosovo... bobrayner (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Site ban Kumioko (and IPs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed by Jehochman. See his comment at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Please see prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Block_review:Kumioko.2FIPs.

I do think Kumioko's criticisms of Wikipedia have some validity (but certainly not to the degree his asserts), and opposed a block / ban in the above discussion.

I do not care care about an editor "disrupting" insider places like noticeboards and the like, because, well, in the big scheme of things that's not really important.

However, when an editor misinforms / stirs the pot [7] with a new editor who has been having a very difficult time transitioning onto Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Persistent_bullying.2C_harassment_and_endless_threats) I consider that active, ongoing damage to the project, and therefore suggest it is time to show K the door. NE Ent 03:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've been willing to show him the door for some time now, as soon as his contributions became a net negative. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban with appeal after six months Criticism is fine, but it is not satisfactory for Wikipedia to be used as a forum where someone can repeatedly add commentary that does nothing but derail discussions. Like the link in the OP, Kumioko recently added some very unfortunate comments at the talk page of someone who is a good editor but who appears utterly unable to let some disagreements go (Kumioko posted as 108.45.104.158 and 138.162.8.59 at this talk). The editor previously had problems which were at least partially caused by encouragement from misguided onlookers, and it is most unhelpful for Kumioko to derail a discussion on the talk page of someone who could be very productive, if they understood that disagreements cannot be dominated by repetitive walls of text. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, very much I don't think, in the big picture, that Kumioko's comments are posing a problem. I don't care if he is only using IPs to comment, or if most of his contributions lately have been to criticize the way Wikipedia is controlled. Italick (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Again, the last discussion just closed. Its really bad form to open up another discussion because you didn't like the outcome of the last one. It should be pretty obvious to everyone at this point that someone is going to continuously reopen ban discussions until they pass because there is no rule here about opening another discussion in X amount of time since the last one. It sure seems like WP:Forum shopping would apply here though. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  What should happen is that you should stop acting in a way that makes people feel the need to cut you off. Stop rattling around, involving yourself in problems where you comment in a way that makes the problem worse. If an editor behaving problematically, it is not kind for you to egg them on, as you have been doing with NinaGreen. Try to be kind and helpful, rather than acerbic and combative. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  The ironic part of that statement is I believe the admin tools should be used sparingly and indefinite blocks should be even more rare. Yet you doled out an indefinite ban to Nina without a thought. Sure she has her problems as we all do, but jumping straight to an indefinite ban is, point blank, abusive. You threw out an indefinite ban when a week would do. That is the kind of action that admins do that I have a problem with. Yet because I called you out and agreed with Nina on some points now I deserve to be banned? That's ridiculous but typical abusive admin bullshit. I had thought you were a pretty good admin before you went and pulled that shenanigan just to prove that you could. I am seriously disappointed in you. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support If one of the people who actively supported his actions in the last discussion thinks he has now crossed the line. And I already thought he crossed the line, then I have to agree that he needs to be shown the door. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The previous ANI was not closed in Kumioko's favour and certainly did not enable him to continue his behaviour with impunity. It said "..Kumioko; grow up, start contributing to the encyclopaedia." Specifically in relation to contributing to the encyclopaedia, this has not happened. While the link provided by NE Ent might be a truism, it is wholly inappropriate to wander around the place looking for potential inductees into the Kumioko school of thought. Kumioko satisfies almost every point under WP:NOTHERE an important directive on numerous policies concerning collaboration. That last thing we need is for new editors to be approached on the basis that being NOT HERE is the way forward. Any community member should be given the absolute right to either hat or remove any Kumioko post that they feel is damaging. No notification, no response, just delete and ignore. Much along the lines of WP:RBI. This might require an Arbcom. sanction. Kumioko can (so he has indicated) evade blocks. Leaky Caldron 14:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As may be well known, I have been a severe critic of Kumioko's behaviour, and it was for pretty much that reason that I abstained from voting on the last ban discussion. While his incessant whining about the same things became tedious a long time ago, I wasn't overly concerned about it as long as he kept it to the usual forums. But now that his behaviour has branched out into deliberate misrepresentation and outright trolling on user talk pages - of users that a great many of the very same admins Kumioko routinely trashes spent considerable time trying to help - it becomes obvious that Kumioko's WP:NOTHERE issues have moved from simply being annoying, to being actively disruptive. Enough is enough. Resolute 14:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I sense a bunch of custodians here hankering the convenience of losing a critic. I didn't see any intimation at NinaGreen's talk page that an editor should behave problematically. Kumioko's dialog doesn't look like a WP:NOTHERE to me, because of what WP:NOTHERE is not (expressing unpopular opinions, advocating changes to Wikipedia policies). I think you can all deal with having Kumioko around. Italick (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I am certainly not a custodian of any description and I resent the implication that I want a critic silenced. I'm a critic myself of many of the things about which Kumioko complains and Kumioko would not dispute that. I haven't seen you around in the same areas that Kumioko frequents so you will not be aware of debilitating effect his contributions can have by means of forking, throwing water on and hijacking otherwise potentially fruitful discussions. FWIW, the following 4 headings under WP:NOTHERE are amply evidenced over the last 2 years:

Little or no interest in working collaboratively - Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and in a cooperative manner with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict.

Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention - Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity. A user may have extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". However some activities are by nature inconsistent with editing access, such as legal threats against other users, harassment, or actions off-site that suggest a grossly divergent intention or gross undermining of the project as a whole. Editors must be able to relax collegially together. There is a level of divergence of fundamental attitudes, whether in editing or to the project as a whole, at which this may not be reasonable to expect.

Inconsistent long-term agenda Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer-term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia").

Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods - This may include repeated chances and warnings, all of which were flouted upon return, or promises to change that proved insincere, were gamed, or otherwise the word or spirit was not actually kept.

Leaky Caldron 15:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is just pure BS. I have worked with a lot of editors on this project over the years and the only ones I have a problem with are admins who think they control the project because they have a few extra tools and editors with POV or Ownership issues. I have an interest in working collaboratively and constructively as long as I am allowed to do so.

I do have a problem with some policies on the project, that's true. I have a problem with abusive admins being able to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want. I also have a problems with Arbcom'slack of interest in doing anything about it and even giving the admins more power to abuse.

The only long term agenda I have, and one that seems to interfere with some admins and editors with their own agendas is that I want Wikipedia to not suck. It has become a toxic environment full of article owners, POV pushers and bullies and no one has the morale courage to do anythign about it. That includes you and all the way up to Arbcom. No one wants to do anything about the hard problems.

Again this one is pure BS, I fully support the projects AIM's and goals but I do not support the project that used to be Wikipedia that has been infested with miscreants, bullies and bloggers who would rather type in discussions at ANI and block everyone who doesn't agree with them. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That isn't even remotely true. There have been numerous non-admins that have !voted to ban you or have asked you to tone yourself down, so its hardly just the admins that have problems with you. And I don't just mean a few, there have been quite a large number. You instead ignore everyone who doesn't completely agree 100% with you and continue on creating a toxic environment in every discussion you enter into. I fully support peoples right to discuss and try to make change, but you don't really do that, you throw around attacks and egg on disruption. You essentially do everything you accuse the big bad admins of doing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit, its completely true but there's no point in arguing with you because even if I provided diffs of helping people someone would just argue it away. The fact is there is a few folks (admins and regular 2nd class citizen editors) that have wanted me out of the project for years, they didn't like me restarting WikiProject US and took advantage of every opportunity to destroy that project and every project that I was trying to keep going. It weakened their grasp of the articles they "owned". No matter what I did, there was always some admin with a problem who was ready to block for stepping into their turf and no admins wanting to intervene. That's why I stopped editing and startted advocating for reform. Too few admins including you are following the rules and just enforce policy whenever its most convenient for the admin who is peddling their POV. I even tried to go to another Wikia project and found some of the same characters had a strangle hold there too. So I stopped editing Mediawiki projects altogether and now I edit over at Wikia where they need help and want it. So the bottom line here is if you and your wikipals want to ban me here because you are too chickenshit or don't have the morale courage to do some reforms that would benefit the project, then that's life. You bitch and moan about my complaints and wanting to make this project better and allow things to get done without 6 month backlogs because only 5 admins know how to do it, but you don't have the time of desire to do anything to help the project. I could be doing 20, 000+ edits a month here instead of at Wikia plus other things to help the project but all you fucks want to do is keep whatever power you have. I don't care what you do at this point because this project deserves to have editors who are dedicated to the project and want to make it better, but as long as admins are allowed to abuse their tools with impunity, this project is going to get that, abusive editors who only care about their POV and not the project. The problem with this site isn't the lack of people who are interested in participating, its in the lack of ability to manage its abusive admins. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See you are again spinning it. Nowhere did I say you haven't at some point in time helped people. What I said was your comment that only admins are the ones who have problems with you wasn't true. Its very simple to prove by looking at the previous ban/block discussions and see the users who aren't admins who commented supporting blocks or bans. You make this out to be that its the admins who are after you, but it isn't. There have been editors of all strips who have been pissed off and annoyed at the toxic atmosphere that you inject into every discussion you push your way into. The problem this wiki has is a problem managing its abusive editors period, which includes yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not spinning it, I just don't agree with you. Yes there are non admins who don't like me but this is Wikipedia there will always be someone who doesn't like what your doing. The difference is its the admins who continue to block me so I cannot even comment in discussions like this about me. Its the minority group of abusive admins that I keep talking about that use the tools abusively to their own ends and POV. Yet rather than remove the tools from these few trouble makers its more important to keep me quite and protect them. Because if the regular editors were trusted, the admins would lose all their power and the role of admin wouldn't be such a hat to collect. You can ban me from the project if you want, but its not going to solve the problems of this site. It just shows that the community is more accepting of abusive admins and editors than in editors who are trying to solve that problem. Don't like how I am trying to do it? Fine, step up. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent summary by Leaky caldron. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • Actually, Italick, you hit on exactly why I didn't !vote in the last discussion. But the issue here is that Kumioko has moved beyond simple whining criticism, but into out right disruption and trolling. That is why I am casting my ballot this time around. Resolute 15:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Since Kumioko evades blocks by using IPs and keeps editing, I'm not sure what effect an indefinite block will have on his contributions to Wikipedia. I know that this is not a good rationale to have when considering blocks but I thought I'd bring it up, whether a block would bring about the desired effect. If an indefinite block is decided upon, I think there should be an ability to appeal after a specified amount of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support per User:Johnuniq's terms. I have seen a lot of Kumioko's...rants, shall I say, though I've never really involved myself in a conversation with them (as far as I can remember), and I think taking it to Cowhen and others' User talk pages is taking it too far. 206.117.89.8 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666 on "wikibreak", heh.)
• Support a site ban for Kumioko. Enough is enough. Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Seeking out pages of new editors who have been blocked to use them as complaining platforms about Wikipedia in general might give an impression of "stirring up the pot" and "soapboxing". Doing it once isn't banworthy though. Aside from the impression that the behavior may leave, it does not exactly seem different from debating and voting on conflicts in the more central drama areas of Wikipedia like ANI and ARBCOM. People get dragged there, often unbidding of the negativity and scrutiny that ensues, just as if the whole conflict alternatively stayed contained within user talk pages. Yet the views expressed in ANI do not need to have popular consensus, and criticism of this project and its policies is accepted. In those places, there is no presumed violation of WP:NOTHERE for comments, criticisms and complaints. Is there some special rule that puts user talk pages off-limits for the kinds of discussion accepted in noticeboards? I'm not in favor of sheltering admins from scrutiny by prohibiting discussions on user pages which are routine in ANI. Italick (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • He's done it at least twice, and will probably continue if unchecked. In both cases, his "contribution" to the discussion was at best non-constructive. 206.117.89.8 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)

• Support. Time to put an end to this. "Wikipedia has become a fucking joke" is not constructive criticism, and nor is empty hand-waving about unidentified "abusive admins"; nor is repeatedly calling identified people "jerks". There is a huge amount of disruption created by Kumioko, and it's been going on for a very long time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. These bi-weekly ban proposals got old some time ago; they are in fact much more disruptive than anything Kumioko has done in all of his +100,000 nothere edits. If we must identify Kumioko's faults, they are inarguably that he is passionate about Wikipedia, and that he holds the arcane ideal that a discussion still includes the viewpoints of opposing sides. He does not ask, and then answer himself, but rather is seen replying to the comments, (provocations), from others. If he is to be banned from Wikipedia, it should be decided by a full Arbcom case—not here! It has been shown numerous times, (far too many), to not be what a consensus of editors want.—John Cline (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is a bad idea to ban an editor merely because he took an extended break from editing articles and is using the appropriate places to complain about what he doesn't like here (user pages, noticeboards). His comments were not disruptive because they were not excessively long or numerous, and it is possible to work around them if you disagree. I didn't find any "goading" or "baiting" at NinaGreen or Cowhen1966. Italick (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Kumioko is a nuisance at best. I don't think he's majorly disruptive, but he doesn't contribute much value these days and I don't see the benefit in keeping him around. I think it's better for both parties if ties are cut, at least for a while. Perhaps a 6-12 month break will give him a fresh perspective and allow him to learn to appreciate some of the things that most of us appreciate around here, but at this point I think it verges on being unhealthy and obsessive to stalk around a website and a community that he clearly has animosity for. N^oformation ^Talk 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Kumioko is engaging in disruptive and repetitive argumentation instead of providing positive contributions. Kumioko is also encouraging other editors to do so. Edward321 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support because I partly agree with User:John Cline. This user is a net negative to the encyclopedia and is evidently trying to further demoralize existing demoralized editors. Community ban is not always effective with long-term negative editors due to their entourages. ArbCom may be a better forum. If there is community consensus, I will support it. If there is a majority but not "consensus", someone should file with ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Supportive In the last go around. I "supported something", in part because the editor (who seemingly goes by several ids) has made it clear on numerous occasions, he does not like it here, he has said he would soon leave, and then that he was already banned, by at one time naming his account "banned editor" (assuming it is him) (and that he was fine with being banned) and I also recall in December, him saying, he would not edit on the Pedia after January 1. Not sure why, he cannot extricate himself from in his view this abusive place (perhaps we are now in a cycle of abuse that just needs to end), but it seems he needs assitance in this regard and nothing else has helped, maybe this will. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, trout nom. These constant block proposals and long winded discussions are quickly becoming disruptive to the building of the encyclopedia, perhaps more so than Kumioko himself. Let the fool rant. I just can't see the argument that this is a "net negative". Mostly he's just making rants on noticeboards and Jimbo's talk. With noticeboards the best thing to do is to ignore. Jimbo, of course has full control over his own talk page, and he is welcome to suppress discussion there as necessary. For these editors having trouble with him, I recommend you do the wise thing of not poking the bear. KonveyorBelt 17:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Problem is, he is diversifying - to other users' talks, if you read Ent's first statement and Johnuniq's comment. If that hadn't happened, we wouldn't be having this proposal here. 206.117.89.8 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)
  • It doesn't matter if he is diversifying because it is not a problem. When admins are not sheltered from criticism, the system is working as it should. Italick (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Long overdue. Kumioko's continued malignant presence in already-controversial areas of the project, such as RfA, is a major contributing factor in creating the toxic environment against which he so vociverously protests. He's had more than enough chances to grow up and work positively, and this lurch into the practice of trying to discourage new editors, his tongue drilling a hole in his cheek the whole time, is the last straw. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just curious but if 10 editors out of 10, 000+ vote to ban me, including about 5 out of 1400 admins, is that really a consensus? Why don't you all just go ahead and send this to Arbcom. So few editors have voted here I am not going to consider it a valid ban if there isn't more votes. Besides that, honestly, do you really think a ban is going to keep me from commenting? Are you willing to ban all IP's? Just what extreme measures are you prepared to use to prevent me from editing? Besides that Basilisk, yuor pretty rude to editors in your interactions, I am not doing anything you haven't said before to someone. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom exists to solve problems the community cannot. Doesn't appear that their intervention will be required here. Resolute 21:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree he is no longer here to build an encyclopedia, which is a shame. Secret ^account 21:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is a shame. I devoted a lot of time to this project and tried so hard to make it better. In the end though, the toxic environment, the entrenched abusive admins and constant insults got to me. I used to be very passionate about the project, now I have no respect for the project whatsoever. All the people who say they want to make it better are just spouting platitudes. There is no interest in making this site better, everyone is too worried about what power they can grab for themselves, the POV they are pushing and the articles they own. This site has completely lost its purpose and direction due to a bunch of self centered, out for themselves admins. If I could undo every edit I did I would. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Motion to close this discussion. We don't need a pile on. The consensus is clear. Jehochman ^Talk 03:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. Make sure you block that IP you think is me along with the 6 accounts AGK accused of being me. You might wanna submit me to SPI, there are probably a couple hundred more users you can block and accuse of being me as well. At least once I am blocked the Arbcom and the abusive admins on this site will feel a little less heat and can get back to their POV pushing and article ownership. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll close this, since I haven't voted. The decision is a mandatory wiki-break for Kumioko. Take a rest, and if you would like to return after, say 6 months, send me or any admin an email, and we will arrange it, assuming that you've truly taken a break, and that you're ready to come back and be productive. I'm purposefully not going to log this as a ban. Think of it as a wikibreak. If you start socking or trouble making, this courtesy might be rescinded. Jehochman ^Talk 03:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Post-close discussion

• I'm sorry Jehochman, but that is effectively a supervote. The discussion was for a community ban, and that is what the consensus is. Also, if you are going to close the discussion, follow up and block the IPs he's using - he's said his piece already. The one part I do agree with is that if he avoids socking for six months, a community discussion to arrange his return could be held. Resolute 14:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Resolute, consensus here is clearly for a ban, thus it should be logged as a ban and the IPs he is using should be blocked. Essentially you closed this completely opposite to consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well of course you agree, you have both been trying to get rid of me for more than 4 years. You might also want to range block the entire Verizon Fios network and the Whole 138.xx range. While your at it, you may want to change the rules to prevent any IP's from editing. Also, all those SPI accounts are mine too so that should help you clear off the back log at SPI. You can also assume any new accounts after the ban are me, so there won't be any new editors to WP. That is how truly stupid and ineffective this ban is. Oh yeah, better block T-mobile as well, I wouldn't want to use my phone to edit. At this point its pretty obvious that you are going to keep submitting me to AN until you get the vote you want. Surely you must have noticed the turn out is smaller and smaller. Because the rest of the community sees how petty and deceitful you all are. If you don't like the result, just submit it again and again until you get the one you want. And you really think I should respect that sort of petty and childish antics. No, I do not. Its just another example of admins being abusive to editors they don't like or aren't in their cliche'. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  You know...threatening to do everything you can to disrupt the wiki only proves the case that you aren't really here to try and improve things. Because someone who actually wanted to improve things wouldn't purposefully try to harm it. But if you want to act like a child who didn't get his way then go ahead. It only ends up proving that everyone was right about you. -DJSasso (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  I don't see the point in conversing with a banned editor. At this point, it looks like you are challenging a banned editor's reputation, which policy tells us not to do. Italick (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see the rationale for not logging this as a community ban, which had a clear consensus. I too, would have supported it if the discussion hadn't been precipitously closed. Jehochman, can you please explain your thinking here? Are you aware that as you were closing this, Kumioko, via one of his IPs hit upon the new tactic of summoning NinaGreen to his talk page, via Echo [8] [9]? Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was letting her know I would not be responding to her comments on her talk page because I was about to get banned. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Kumioko said nothing of the kind in that edit. He said: "I think its kinda funny and at the same time kinda sad that jehochman protected your page because an IP left a comment. He even accused them of being me. Apparently its gotten to the point where any IP that edits is actually me in disguise. Good Luck because once an editor is blocked on this project they are marked for life. Every admin will now hesitate a little less when seeing you were once blocked indefinitely, and that's if you even decide to come back at all". – Voceditenore (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok go ahead and log it. You all should try to be kind to people. But Kumioko clearly hasn't responded well to kindness. Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I have reponded poorly to kindness. Show me were someone was kind and I didn't respond in kind? If people are nice to me I am nice in return but I no longer feel I need to be nice to people who, in many cases, have been jerks to me and had absolutely nothing done about it. I didn't see these kind people when I was erroneously blocked back in 2010, or again in 2012. I dind't see many kind words when I filled out any of my RFA's, not even the one back on about 2008. People on Wikipedia are not nice because the admins don't do anything about it, particularly to other admins. They just buddy up and whoever has the most tools wins. That my friends is why people don't edit here. Its not because they aren't interested or because they kind find things to do. Its because you people run down any editor who hasn't been here since the start. There are so many rules and policies no one can even remember them all. So as I said before. Do whatever you want, ban me, put a hex on me, whatever. I'm tired of feeling like Sisyphus getting plowed over by boulders. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added Kumioko to the list of banned editors, going by the consensus I see above, and Jehochman's concession to the idea of banning. -- Atama頭 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also blocked Kumioko and left a banned editor notice, if there are any IPs that need to be blocked (or range-blocked) I'll leave that to others to deal with. -- Atama頭 22:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I haven't interacted with Kumioko (knowingly) recently, or in the past that I can recall, nor have I participated in any discussions about Kumioko. My actions are to reflect the consensus in this discussion. I'm aware that Kumioko has technically abandoned their user account, but felt that the blocking of the account and banner left were proper procedure. -- Atama頭 22:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Let the games begin! Poker player 2010 (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• And now my user talk page is being harassed, I suppose I should have expected that. :/ -- Atama頭 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked and tagged as suspected, thanks for volunteering. Sigh. Pakaran 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep you should have. For what its worth Atama, I don't hate you or feel any malice towards you. You were just following the desires of the abusive admins and editors that have gathered on this page to ban me from the project I cared about. I believed in the project and worked my butt off to help build a good encyclopedia but all I got was spit on and insulted. You showed me that this project is nothing more than a joke. So, if you want me to be bad, I'll be bad. Happy editing. You got one and I'll give you another. I wonder how long I can keep this up? I bet I created hundreds of accounts. Maybe even thousands anticipating this day coming. I wonder how long it takes before I can get Wikipedia to ban all IP's? ~I bet it only takes a few weeks. WimpyKid1996 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko, why would you try to get Wikipedia to ban all IPs by making a bunch of throwaway sock accounts rather than IPs? It seems like a backward strategy. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, so far, we have 2 IPs as well as the 4 accounts. Not all tagged, but all blocked in the past hour. Pakaran 23:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)f

Did we really just community ban an editor for giving advice to another editor? Yes, I fully realize there is a history, but a recent request was closed with no consensus, and the only new thing noted was some advice to an editor to stay away from ANI. If I am reading correctly, Kumioko warned an editor that taking something to ANI might result in that editor getting blocked. As we know, that editor took something to ANI...and got blocked. Doesn't necessarily make it great advice, even if i had been delivered before the block, but was it so egregiously bad to deserve a six month ban? That's a rhetorical question, because a number of editors apparently think a ban is deserved.

I will take this occasion to ask a non-rhetorical question. I note roughly 48 hours between the request for a ban and the closure of the request. While sympathetic to Jehochman's desire to avoid a pile-on, I'd like to question whether 48 hours is long enough to make such a decision. We take longer to decide whether to use an en-dash or a hyphen in certain phrases, is it really unreasonable to think that we should take at least a week to enact a community ban?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CBAN suggests a minimum 24 hour wait, this was nearly double that. -- Atama頭 00:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This sure does smell like a forum shopping job and I am unconvinced that latest sock accounts to post here were not operated by gravedancers. There have been many people making concerted attempts to troll and bait Kumioko. I noted this when my talk page took short-lived hits of vandalism after I supported Kumioko in his last adminship candidacy. Italick (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Italick: definitely him. See the SPI below. ₆an⁶sh₆ 19:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say we just community banned an editor for trolling, disruptive behaviour, WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE. Suggesting that his posts on those user talk pages were simply "giving advice" strains credulity. Resolute 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Was semiprotecting this page really necessary? KonveyorBelt 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It'll expire in just a few hours, but the user does seem to have stopped editing at least for the moment. Pakaran 01:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet another self-confessed Kumioko sock here on the page of another user. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI/Sockfarm sub-discussion

 Checkuser note: There's a pretty big (60+) sockfarm here. Full list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumioko for those who are interested. T. Canens (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, here. ₆an⁶sh₆ 19:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't suppose this can be closed and the petulant child be put into the naughty corner? I've been watching this fiasco for days and this is ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Great maker! If ever there was doubt that the time for inactivity is over, it is now. Not only are they making Bad Faith sockpuppets, but deliberately announcing that their goal is to get innocent editors ensnared in the block/ban to get the restrictions on the person overturned or lessened. I think it's time to be creative with the use of the tool set and enact a infinite (not indefinite) community ban on Kumioko as the time for soft hands is over. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, per deny, now is definitely time for inactivity of sort, i.e. rbi; there's no benefit to continue discussing the editor as that only rewards attention seeking attention. We can't impose any "infinite" sanction because we can't restrict the Wikipedia community of the future. NE Ent 16:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A community ban is about as "infinite" as it gets on Wikipedia. The only way I know of to overturn a community consensus ban is with a community consensus unban. That's not easy to accomplish. The community ban as implemented above is about as strong a censure of an editor that I know of. -- Atama頭 17:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that there is truly no such thing as the standard offer? If not, the WP:SO essay should be nominated for deletion, though I will not actually be the one to do this. Italick (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The standard offer page is only an essay, not policy, and it's possible that the "variations" section would apply because of the recent sockpuppetry and vandalism. Peter James (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is an essay, as observed above. I'm not asking how the notion might be used to bring Kumioko back. I just don't think that there is a standard offer if a banned editor needs to stand a popularity trial to come back. If so, WP:SO is not even remotely a descriptor of how Wikipedia works. Italick (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not an official standard offer, but it's a standard supported by many users, so Wikipedia sometimes works that way. It's similar to the situation with admin recall, which has sample criteria but some admins vary the process and others are not open to recall, that doesn't mean the admin recall pages should be deleted. Peter James (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The standard offer is sometimes what is suggested when there is a suggestion that a community ban be overturned. There is still a requirement that a community consensus be established to support the standard offer. It's not an automatic thing, where an indef block or ban is overturned every time an editor follows what is in the essay. It just saves a lot of time in such situations because you can start the discussion on a noticeboard and say that the sanctioned editor is willing to follow the standard offer without necessarily having to come up with some sort of deal from scratch. -- Atama頭 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, NE Ent is right, just apply a coat of DENY/RBI and take away the baby's rattle. "I'll just make tons of socks!" isn't exactly a new and effective strategy. No need for an "infinite" ban discussion, as Kumioko has effectively infinitely banned themselves--no admin in their right mind would unblock him, they'd be desysopped so quick their mop would spin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The standard offer does not apply to a Person Who is running a sock farm with 60+ socks, that is ridiculous! But we have to tread carefully, because I fear that this will get him roused up enough that he might attack Wikipedia Via code/hacking and use a denial of service attack. This guy is bent on ruining Wikipedia. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he'll make a very focused effort to ruin Wikipedia. He told us that he prefers editing at Wikia. If he is as productive there as he once was here, he could have his hands full of too much work to really be bothered with trying to take this encyclopedia offline. Italick (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Italick. You've been wrong about this since the off and you're wrong now. Rather than pontificating about his intentions I suggest you check out the actual activities of his most recent socks which are directly disruptive and damaging to a wide range of mainspace articles as well as pinging several editors dozens of times with abuse and threats of ceaseless disruption. Leaky Caldron 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So far he has confined his article space "protest" to vandalising BLPs and other articles. But really, will someone please close this discussion and archive it. The speculation and repeated commentary here serve no purpose but to further his goal of keeping his behaviour in the spotlight. As NE Ent and Starblind have said, just apply a coat of DENY/RBI in future. Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Colton Cosmic: Request to be unblocked for the purpose of participating in the RFCU about his block

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

---

I'm sure that many will sigh, roll their eyes and probably face palm at seeing @Colton Cosmic:'s name again on this noticeboard. Currently there is an RFC/U (see further up for link to it) on the conditions surrounding his block, which was raised by @GB fan:. I won't go into the particulars of the situation but I'm sure most will be familiar with it. On his talk page, CC has made a statement that he should be allowed to participate in the RFC/U. I made the offer that should he so wish that I would be willing to post a review request on AN to determine community consensus as to whether he should or should not be unblocked to participate. I also posted on the RFC/U talk page to seek opinions of those who have been involved (for which I thank them). I will not be making a for or against statement with regards to this review to unblock, nor do I intend to make any views on CC's declarations, which are visible in my talk page history from the various IP's that he has been using.

To whit,

1. CC may be unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in the RFC/U where he is only to answer questions directed to him but is not to rehash the same material leading to the indef block. Failure to abide by this restriction will lead to an immediate re-block
2. Badgering of commentary will similarly attract an immediate re-block
3. Comments should only be related to the conditions surrounding their initial block and not for any subsequent blocks or admin actions taken against them (I also hope that the RFC/U stays focused enough on the topic which is his initial block as I know that later actions have been taken against him but are not the subject of the RFC/U.)
4. Personal attacks of any sort will lead to an immediate re-block

These are a few of my thoughts on the kind of conditions that would be attached to such a temporary unblock and as such are not exhaustive. Blackmane (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I believe in second chances so I'm for a temporary unblock but I'm doubtful whether all of these four conditions can be met. It will be very hard to comment on the initial block without rehashing the arguments surrounding it and NOT discussing subsequent admin actions. I understand why the conditions were set up, it would just be remarkable if for a WP discussion to strictly stay on topic so I'm not sure if he is being set up to fail. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than open to rewording the conditions. My "conditions", which are more like a train of thought rather than strict conditions, were meant to be a list of things that should be nipped in the bud before having to deal with them down the track. Would a much simplified version as below be more suitable?

CC may be unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in the RFC/U and is reminded that badgering, personal attacks and disruption will be met with an immediate reblock

Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable condition that could be met, Blackmane. I think this is basic good behavior that should be required of all Wikipedians. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support removing block to allow editor to participate in their RFC/U. It's too easy to re-block if they run amok and will serve as a good indicator of their presumed, more mature attitude and re-dedication to editing by accepted best practices.—John Cline (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Question from a non-admin. Wouldn't these types of situations make the perfect opportunity for using mw:W:LST (installed according to Special:Version) where you could create a section on his talk page and set it up to be transcluded using <section begin=responses />His comments go here<section end=responses />, and then just transclude that section on the RFC/U with {{#lst:User talk:Colton Cosmic|responses}}? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per John Cline. I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I have already expressed deep cynicism about the motives of this editor. However, he should be unblocked subject to the specified conditions, as WP:ROPE, with the understanding that any subsequent reblock is indefinite, and in this case, indefinite may indeed need to be infinite. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. If we're running an RFCU, we ought to give the guy the chance to participate; the point of an RFCU is to get someone to change objectionable behavior, and there's no point in doing that for someone who's indefinitely blocked. Can't remember who it is, but I've seen an admin create a filter to prevent editors in this situation from editing anything except a few specific pages. Any idea who that is? Might be useful to have a filter preventing CC from editing anywhere except the RFCU, its talk page, and usertalkspace. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support if he agrees absolutely to abide by the decision that is handed down. I'd be happy to give him a voice on the RFCU if he'll go away when it's over (if that's the decision of course...) --Onorem (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose:Colton was already partially unblocked and allowed to edit his talk page again. Given even that trivial amount of freedom, he abused it by canvassing (using the ping function to draw editors to his RFC/U while giving them a lecture about how unjustly he had been treated). He's now sockpuppeting again, using IPs like 69.248.52.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 63.237.92.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 50.242.31.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus more that edit filters are keeping a clamp on. There's no reason to believe that he will ever abide by any restrictions. On a limited scale, John Cline's approach has already been tried, Colton Cosmic already ran amok, and the block has been reinstated.—Kww(talk) 05:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kww. BMK (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever other issues there are with CC, I don't think that outright violation of the unblock restrictions is going to happen. They might test the limits, but I don't see them going over it. So, support, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose His case has been made. S/he's astute enough to evade blocks as evidenced by history. There is no evidence that an unblock will advance this cause. It's a vanity plea to edit Phoenix Jones as Colton Cosmic in some sort of self-erotic fantasy. Please let Colton Cosmic fall to the wayside as we already know he has the ability to return quietly. Even if unblocked, a topic ban on super-heroes is warranted. It's a vanity SPA at best. --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. What, he's socking again right now? No way. And please turn this block into a permanent formal community ban at last, with a provision to not allow review before two years are up, so that at least everyboy will know from now on that making yet more requests for review will be futile from the start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per KWW -- and note that at present it's not necessary anyway, given that AnthonyCole is doing the job for him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:OFFER applies. He simply needs to not sock at all for 6 months, and then we can consider unblocking him. The RFCU can go on without his input; in some respects it might be better off that way. GiantSnowman 13:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ... although, I should say "fully support, plus send him a million dollars" because even though I was the FIRST to ever extend WP:OFFER, and have religiously begged him to just follow the damned processes and he'd be welcomed back, he will INSTANTLY choose the opposite path of whatever I suggest out of some bizarre "I hate good, honest advice from someone who actually is looking out for my best interests" fetish that they have. We have a process for someone to participate in noticeboard discussions about them, and any time we've added filters in order to only permit someone to comment in a certainspot, it's worked poorly. I even designed the {{User proxy}} template that will easily allow someone who copy/pastes on their behalf to appropriately/easily attribute the comments back. I have also often suggest we create a section on their usertalk and transclude that section to noticeboard, it's not accepted by the community yet ES&L 17:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• ES&L, this is exactly what I was asking about above. Would you like to hit me up on my talk page about drafting up an RfC to see if community support can be gained for this type of usage? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia has no limit of blocks and unblocks. If he s disruptive, i is easy as the click of a button to go back and block him again. If you are opposing because of WP:OFFER,. save that for the RfC. This is a discussion on he RfC alone, not about his overall behavior. KonveyorBelt 17:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose entirely per Kww who's summed it up nicely!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support As a matter of process, I believe that an individual who is the subject of an RfC or an AN/I or ARBCOM case should be able to participate in the discussion. Otherwise, it is like a trial without a defense lawyer, it's inherently biased against the subject because they are not able to face their detractors and address their concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz, we have a process in place for him to participate right now that is very effective. Unblocking is not a part of that process. He's choosing not to take part using that process so that he can claim "unfair" - in other words, he's "cutting off his nose to spite his face" ES&L 12:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kww and KonveyorBelt (ironically). Already given a limited opportunity to offer up arguments on their talk page, and immediately abused it. I am not seeing an upside to allowing them even greater leeway to abuse the community's good faith. Resolute 23:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - As I've said before, if critics we're given more tolerance on-Wiki, there'd likely be less need to congregate in darkened off-Wiki corners. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Colton Cosmic's demonstrated behaviour across several loosening of sanctions against his account. Unblocking his talk page resulted in multiple ping'ings of third parties, four at a time, accompanied by propaganda for his point of view, and re-pings if he felt they didn't respond fast enough. This is alongside him describing those who don't agree with him as (for example) "that weirdo", even after they try to help him. Can we be sure he said that? No, because he uses multiple different IP addresses across multiple different target pages to try to avoid being responsible for his own posts. Put an end to it. It's too much. Huge negatives and zero positives. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose the level of appealing this block sets a very bad precedent. By all accounts this has been drug before damn near every admin, Jimbo, Arbcom etc. If he wants to come back abide by the block and quit sockingserial block evasion or sock and not be so blatant about it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that some of Supports/Opposes seem to be implying that this is a request to permanently unblock CC. Just to clarify, this is not a third party request to unblock nor is it a review of the current blocks. It's a gauge of community consensus to determine whether there is support to temporarily unblock CC for the sole purpose of participating in the RFC/U.

I hasten to reassure you that my aim is not to badger your support/oppose, but to ensure that you are !voting on the correct point. Apologies in advance if I am stating the obvious. Blackmane (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think KWW summed it up nicely. He's been given rope before. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pefectly clear that the request was for a temporary unblock. I'm also prefectly clear that someone who can't bring themselves to stop socking, and takes steps to game the system by using his talk page to canvass other editors, isn't deserving of that privilege. The RFC/U -- which essentially amounts to a community discussion on the validity of his being blocked -- can go forward without his participation, and he has only himself to blame for that. BMK (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well then screw the RfC--we all know what the decision will be if the community won't even let him be temp-unblocked, much less fully unblocked. KonveyorBelt 04:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

His participation wasn't going to change the result of the RfC in any case - and one can argue that it was a misuse of that forum, which is designed to deal with the behaviorial problems of editors, not with community oversight of blocks. It should probably be shut down and archived. BMK (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why shut it down? What's it's going to do is provide community confirmation that the block was valid and that the blocking admin was within their authority, AND (most importantly) Colton Cosmic will never be able to use "I was improperly blocked" as an excuse ever again. He engineered the RFC, and took a risk from the beginning that this would be the outcome (I mean, if he didn't see it, something's wrong). This RFC has the power to actually HELP Colton regain membership in the community by formally eliminating the one thing that's prevented his return all along. ES&L 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the nature of his block evasion by itself justifies a block. There are ways he could've went to resolve this. Imagine if he had just not evaded his block and appealed the block after respecting it, don't you think the community would be more amenable? I think that the hole has been thoroughly self dug at this point. How many other blocked editors are watching this and thinking to themselves this can be a way forward for them too? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What? So confirming the block was valid would help him regain his status in the community? KonveyorBelt 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. After having the community once and for all confirm the block (and the community IS the highest court on Wikipedia), the logical and intelligent person says "ok, I've tried everything. Maybe the block was valid after all - or as a minimum, I'd better act as if it was. I guess I had better change my direction. Six months of editing over at Simple Wikipedia won't be so bad, then I'll come back and hopefully they forgive me" Hell, if 6 months from I saw assurances that he had actually changed, and had some history of positive edits AND positive interactions somewhere else, I would personally unblock him myself - also something I've said before, by the way. DP 10:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kww. Socking at least as recently as yesterday. No thanks. Not temporarily, not conditionally, not now, not ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Colton would need to stop the sockpuppetry before I'd be willing to support something like this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Even when they had talk-page access, Colton Cosmic was abusing Echo to canvass people in a blatant manner. Immediately after their talkpage access was revoked, they began to sock with IPs (for the five billionth time). Some of their comments have been abusive, and they've tried very hard to adminshop by contacting a whole bunch of different admins in their desperate attempts for "justice". Colton Cosmic has been given rope multiple times, and has hung themselves with it on every occasion. How easy it is to reblock is irrelevant; almost everyone knows that they will immediately begin to sock if reblocked, and will immediately become a massive nuisance if unblocked (look at their behaviour with the IPs). And unblocking a user with such a poor history before the RfC/U closes sets a very bad example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, striking previous support. Since there has been socking while this issue was open, we should conclude that he has hanged himself yet again with the WP:ROPE that we offered him. We aren't !voting on whether to upgrade the indefinite block to a site ban, but I would support support a Site Ban with an appeal after no less than two years. A few of us tried to give him one more chance, and he used two more chances to spit at the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Opposte I'm strongly supportive of unblocking people to participate in a RFC/U, AN//I thread (such as unban request) or whatever with the proviso they need to behave properly while unblocked including limiting themselves to wherever they're supposed to be limited to. If you can't even be trusted to edit your own talk page (as the canvassing has shown) and can't avoid socking while people discuss whether to unblock you to participate, I have no reason to think you will behave any better when unblocked. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I just remembered I was one of the people canvassed. I didn't remember this while writing my response and it doesn't really change my opinion. I didn't mind the ping. And I don't know that CC had any reason to think I would be supportive of them in the RFC (the reason they said they pinged me didn't seem to be one which would leave them to believe I would support them) so in some regards, it's not such simple canvassing. But when you're on as thin a thread as CC apparently was, it's a particularly dumb idea to do anything which looks remotely like canvassing. And it seems clear that approaching random people hoping someone would be sympathetic is something CC has a history of doing. The fact they either didn't appreciate it was illadvised or didn't care, means I don't think we can trust them to be unblocked in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Colton Cosmic denies that using an IP address to edit while blocked is sockpuppetry because it isn't deceptive. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=597674586&oldid=596288496 He appears to be saying that as long as the community knows that he is evading his block, it isn't sockpuppetry. "I wasn't wearing a mask, so it wasn't a crime." Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• It isn't, according to the definition on the Sockpuppetry page: "sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer". It may be block evasion, but there's probably no other appropriate way to communicate with the other editors, and that's all the IPs are being used for, not to edit content or associated pages, or participate in community discussions. Peter James (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the definition from the article on Sock puppet (Internet). The applicable article is the Wikipedia policy on sock puppetry in Wikipedia.

• First any discussion should be based on our policy not our article. And our policy makes it clear "Circumventing policies or sanctions" is an inappropriate use of an alternative account which obviously is meant to include IPs in such cases. Whether or not you want to call it sockpuppetry, it's clearly covered under the sockpuppetry policy so it's really just pointless semantics for CC to try & argue whether or not it should be called sockpuppetry. Second, even our article that you linked to mentions in the LEDE "The term now includes <snipped> or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website." And the article hasn't been modified since 25 February. Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone who claims that editing with an IP address when one's account is blocked is not sockpuppetry is full of shit. The block is for the person not the account, and the person is what's behind the IP. Not only that, but those who deliberately edit with an IP even when their account is not blocked -- which excepts those who accidentally edit while logged out -- is guilty of evading scrutiny, which is also a violation of WP:SOCK. The community has been much too lenient about this, leading to numerous problems which take a long time to clear up. Admins should really block violators of the "evading scrutiny" proscription on sight, it would eliminate a significant source of disruption. BMK (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• support in the interest of increased transparency. Holding an RFC/U while a user is unable to respond directly and openly on the RFC page strikes me as poor practice at best, and I see no probably harm top the project in this very limited unblock. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, tell me, what har will refusing this limited unblock prevent? DES ^(talk) 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Allowing an editor who was gaming the system when they had talk page access to have free roam. Setting a precedent that you can get someone to file an RfC/U for any banned editor, no matter how abusive they were, and suddenly they're allowed back, even if it was for the duration of the RfC/U. Allowing someone who has been making completely inaccurate attacks against people (and is still persisting in doing that) to get off scot free. Allowing someone who is block evading to have free roam. There are a whole bunch of very valid reasons why allowing CC to be unblocked prior to the end of the RfC/U to be a very bad idea. The consensus in the RfC/U is also to keep the block in place indefinitely. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• This bastardized RFC/U itself is probably a bad precedent.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't dispute that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree on both points. This is not the first time that an RFC/U has been used as a vehicle for comments on a blocked or banned user, and it was a questionable approach then also. It would be a very bad precedent to establish that a blocked or banned user can request an RFC/U and then request to be unblocked for the purpose of the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support limited unblock, the talk page comment may have been block evasion technically, but the edits have been confined to the pages necessary for communication; that the IPs have been used in limited areas indicates the same can be possible for an unblocked account. Peter James (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock to participate on the condition CC not use notifications to ping editors. No harm will come to the encyclopedia (you know, mainspace, the allegedly important stuff). NE Ent 11:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary

After a week, there are 12 supports against 15 opposes. This review has been open for longer than many that I've read. Personally, there does not seem to be much more mileage to be gained from keeping this open. I would like to thank all the editors who have taken their time out to make a comment here and request that an uninvolved admin sum up the consensus and close this up, if there are no objections. Blackmane (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

An option to move forward

Ok so having read one of the above comments on the nature of the edits this may be a desirable middle ground for all. One thing that can be said about Cosmic Colton, he has not edited mainspace and has limited his evasion to block evasion. Granted this takes trusting how honest he is which I am not qualified to comment on. I have done some thinking and realize if I look at it at it from the light of a person just looking for help it mitigates it a small amount. Now I think this can work out best for all parties involved. Let's give CC rope to do a RFC/U with the caveat that if the block comes down to being justified or there is disruption during the process he will be site-banned for a period of one year to be reset each time he block evades. This allows us to hear his grievance in an open forum and allows us to rid the encyclopedia of the distraction one way or another. He would have to agree naturally and some level of last trust left frmo the community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support; this is reasonable.—John Cline (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - He's had rope given him too often, and I don't trust him to any extent whatsoever. There is no need to ?move forward", he's blocked indef, and should stay that way. The status quo is quite acceptable and the best alternative for the building of an encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There isn't a consensus in the above discussion to unblock him at all, caveats or otherwise. In fact, a quick headcount gives us a 10-to-16 consensus against unblocking. Why does your 'way forward' ignore that consensus? This is getting silly. No more chances, no more bagaining, no more games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose missing the forest for the trees. --Rschen7754 04:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this is kind of like saying that a science experiment with dangerous chemicals should be done even though everyone knows that the chemicals will explode: it's not going to work and it could have negative results. CC, I hope you realize you are being brought here because some people think you can change and become a productive user on this site. Give it 6-9 months of no block evasion and constructive editing on other sister projects (like Commons, Meta, etc.) and then an unblock could be reasonable. But we're not there yet IMHO. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support I don't understand Cosmic Colton's behavior in all of this. If he had been more cooperative and trusting (assuming he had nothing to hide), it would have never come to this. However, since the whole mess has come this far, I see no harm in unblocking to participate in his RFC/U. No user can break Wikipedia and he will be so carefully watched that if he does anything wrong he will be blocked and banned in minutes. Then it will be over and at least we will be able to say we bent over backwards to be fair. I am One of Many (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You see "no harm" in unblocking an editor who takes whatever steps he feels are necessary to pursue his cause - canvassing, sockpuppetry -- even while asking to be unblocked temporarily? That's taking AGF into a mutual death spiral, I think. This guy is pulling the wool over your eyes, and you see no problem with that. BMK (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

BMK, "no harm" was simply a practical claim. If he did anything wrong, there are so many eyes watching him, he would be blocked in minutes. Actually, the only one who is likely to be harmed by unblocking Cosmic Colton is himself. I am One of Many (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is a pretty re-reading of the comments/consensus above. The above discussion should have been simply closed as per its natural end - no need to a restatement of pretty much the same question. Especially considering that CC will never accede to a "site ban" - there'll be more socks than a Fruit of the Loom factory DP 10:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - these requests are bordering on disruptive now, and the consensus in the RfC/U is already very heavily in favour of supporting the block. For other reasons, see my comments in the main thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as misleading and a cruel and unusual punishment. We all know what the result will be of the RfC/U. There is no longer a need for CC to argue his case here. In fact, him doing so and being soundly snowed in is detrimental to any chance of a contructive return. As DangerousPanda said above, the RfC will just be a mirror of the discussion above. If you want him banned, just propose he be banned; there is no longer a point in playing charades about this RfC. KonveyorBelt 22:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

New good faithed editor with very similar name

I just noticed that a new editor started editing as Ppiotrus (talk · contribs). I thought we had account name filters preventing creation of accounts with very similar name to avoid potential confusion. As far as I can tell this editor is editing in good faith, just started on en wiki, and has no pl wiki account (no pl:Wikipedysta:Ppiotrus exists. Any suggestions whether we/I should ask him to rename his account? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence they're intentionally targeting / mocking Piotrus, I'd let it be. NE Ent 10:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just notified Ppiotrus, who hadn't been told that this thread concerning them had been started. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved account creator) That username actually wouldn't have triggered mw:Extension:AntiSpoof because it's not "technically" similar although it is visually similar for humans. What it's intended to catch would be something like User:Pl0tru5. AGF applies to this username until given a reason to believe otherwise (and an ACC creator may override AntiSpoof in certain cases as well because of AGF). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit requests

Handling edit requests isn't something I've done a lot of, but I just noticed the backlog had reached 101 requests. I looked at two, which dated to January. We are trying to encourage editors with COI to use an edit request rather than make a COI edit, so it behooves us to be responsive. I say this as someone who has not contributed much, but I'll try to handle a few, I hope some others will pitch in as well. Category:Requested edits --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Virutally none of those require an adminstrator, very few are currently protected. It might be a good idea, to notify the relevant project(s) and ask for help. For example, it would need specialist eyes to make a judgement on the request for the addition to Human papillomavirus. Voceditenore (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit requests to unprotected pages are regularly declined with {{subst:EP|hr}} without the need for further work. I kinda wonder why so many requests are made to unprotected pages, it's.... unusual. Is there some trolling going on? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The COI edit requests in the chart at the top of that category are a special case, not trolling. The editors making the requests could do it themselves, but they are following the WP:COI guidance and requesting the edits on the talk pages instead. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, last October, after 3 weeks with no reply, the COI requester at Human papillomavirus went ahead and added the material themselves. I made a note of that on the talk page, and fixed the template. I suspect in a lot of these cases, the edits have already been made (or declined) but the template hasn't been updated and the talk pages remain in the category. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aaah, excellent point. I'm kinda thinking it should be a different template for edit requests for SPP'ed pages (ESp), FPP'ed pages (EP) and and for COI (ECOI?), though. Are you aware if this was discussed at some point? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I had no idea there were these COI edit request templates until now, but see Template talk:Request edit. They seem to be different from the ones normally used when a page is protected or semi-protected—Template:edit protected. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore, I appreciate that most of these requests are for unprotected pages, but given that many are COI requests, I would hope that it would be reasonably experienced editors who undertake the request. In addition, I posted here because the cat is list on {{Admin dashboard}} so my guess is that actions are more apt to be seen by admins than others. Is this cat listed anywhere else? How would an editor know about it other than through the admin dashboard? Is there is a better place for this discussion (Village Pump?) I'll be happy to pick it up there.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. At the moment there is no way for ordinary editors to know about an edit request unless they have the page on their watch list. I'm not an administrator, but I do deal with {{EP}} requests that pop up on my watchlist if the page is only semi-protected. However, I'd never encountered a COI request before yesterday. My suggestion about contacting WikiProjects is because you are likely to get experienced editors who are familiar with the subject matter and the sources. Being an admin is no guarantee that one can adequately judge a requested edit in a specialist subject. I'm going to put a link to Category:Requested edits at WikiProject Opera. Who Knows? We might get an ethical PR agent someday who doesn't just go ahead and fill an article with stuff like this. Other projects, especially WikiProject Companies and WikiProject Medicine, might also want to do the same. It could help keep the backlog reasonably in check. Or perhaps someone could set up something like the Article Alert Bot for this. The AA Bot notifies projects of XfDs, PRODS, Peer Reviews, FACs etc for articles with their banners. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The semi-protected backlog was almost up to 80 at one point a few weeks ago too. I often go through the full (requesting protection lowered if I think I can answer it or posting comments if I think it will help), template, and semi protected queues. I had forgotten all about the COI queue, and currently Jackmcbarn's script doesn't work on those (as far as I know). I'll see if I can burn down the log some in the next day or two. Quite often they can be declined as lacking RS or being an unclear request. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

My script currently doesn't support COI requests, but I'll add support for it soon (probably today or tomorrow). Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, upon looking closer, the COI templates are significantly more complex than the other edit request templates. My script won't work with these without a lot of extra complexity. This will probably be a longer-term project once I get my code in a more modular form. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jack, wouldn't it be easier to integrate the COI template into the other edit request template (this is where the "unprotected" option I was suggesting earlier comes into play) than to bulk out the script that much to accommodate a different template (which should probably be consistent with the other three (well, one technically) anyway)? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That was my original idea, but Mr. Stradivarius said it would be a bad idea (and he does make a good point). Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• It would be best to keep the template at the protection level it was originally detected as, so that requests still make sense if the protection level changes., I'm not suggesting changing the level from what it was detected as, I'm suggesting that it could originally be detected as unprotected if it is just a COI request. COI edit requests tend to stick around for a long time without being answered, and I'm suggesting it is partly because they can be such a pain to answer, especially doing it manually (which is why the semi-protected queue hit 80 before I cleaned it out using Jack's script). They also require a bit more research to come up with reliable sources to make the requested changes because requesters often do not include (for whatever reason) appropriate WP:RS. and most often the editor just forgot to fill in the page name in the template, and this is one use case for what Gerrit:116482 via Bugzilla:12853 is suppose to help fix (by automatically filling in the page name from whatever page the "submit an edit request" button was clicked on). Not sure if there's anything we can do about that, short of updating the preload text code in MediaWiki to take a "page" parameter., see previous comment. I'd prefer keeping things simple here. How about just using the same code for all answered edit requests?, looks like Mr. Stradivarius agrees that COI request template should be merged in with all of the other edit requests, but I suppose I could be misreading. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily opposed to integrating the COI request template with Module:Protected edit request. My objection was more that we shouldn't automatically assume that requests pointing to unprotected pages are COI edit requests, as there is a risk of getting false positives that would get forgotten in the wrong queue. Making {{requested edit}} act more like {{edit protected}} seems like a good idea to me, as it means one less interface for patrollers to learn, and better error checking for requests placed on the wrong page, etc. But this is probably better discussed at Template talk:Request edit, as this thread is getting a little off-topic. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn, I am largely responsible for making the Request Edit templates more complex, largely for my own selfish reasons (so I can use them where I have a COI). Please feel free to blow up all my hard work (not being sarcastic, seriously). Just treating it like another "protection level" and without all the sub-templates is much much better.

I think that in order to get any of my Request Edits considered, I need to ask an editor I know to consider them, and this has the effect of eventually leading to the accusation that I have a posse of "buddies" helping me. If the queue was actually processed, such that it attracted a completely random reviewer to each article, that would be very much preferred.

I don't know if I agree with User:Sphilbrick saying that COI requests should be answered by particularly experienced editors. Like any editors, COIs will have to deal with the inconcistency and amateurism of Wikipedia. Just like AfC or any other queue, some reviewers will be better than others and they will often be done wrong. Any editor should feel free to accept/reject a Request Edit and any editor should also feel free to contest whether it was the right decision. OTOH, editors should be able to reflect on specific criteria/instructions for which are proper to accept. CorporateM (Talk) 21:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll respectfully disagree, although if I am more careful with my terms, we may find ourselves close together. I don't feel that an editor needs tens of thousands of edits to respond to a COI edit request, on the other hand, I don't want a newbie, who has reverted a couple dozen vandals, and now is looking for something else to do, to take on a COI request and fulfill it. COI requests are very likely to look fine on the surface, but have the potential of violating weight, or NPOV, two areas that I don't expect the average newbie to be fully conversant with. We don't have a lot of gradations of experience between autoconfirmed and admin; I'd like something more than autoconfirmed, but happy with something well short of admin. I'm attracted to the AfC model, though not sure how to implement it. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin requested

Is there an uninvolved admin that could volunteer to close Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Merger Proposal with 2014 Crimean Crisis when need be? The situation remains controversial and there are some editors with strong opinions one way or another. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why admin? 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin or uninvolved editor the point is that it is a huge discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck

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

---

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

---

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

Resolved

 – Hopelessly fucked up. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

On 1st March, "Today's Featured Article" was Fuck_(film).

Before it appeared, there was considerable discussion on various pages about whether or not it was OK for the amin page to feature something called "Fuck".

Consensus agreed it was OK, and it was on the main page for a day; the world did not end.

But now, the main page says;

"Recently featured: Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) – Fakih Usman – F★CK"

The article is not called F★CK. The film is not called F★CK. It is called Fuck.

I noticed this error about 6 hours ago, and reported it on Talk:Main_Page#Today.27s_Featured_Article.

The only response has been from admin Jayron32 (talk · contribs), who has said we need a 7-day discussion to agree the change.

Clearly, he knows that in 7 days it will not matter, because it'll only be on the main page for another day or so.

So it sounds like a "supervote".

TL;DR - I requested that admins fix the incorrect spelling of the recently featured article, viz. change "F★CK" to "Fuck". 6 hours ago. An admin has refused, and so far no others have stepped in to fix the problem. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not worth the trouble. It's been like this for two days already, and will be gone soon enough. Just forget about it. Not worth hassling somebody about something so trivial. Jehochman ^Talk 03:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• The title of the film is F★ck according to the movie poster itself. The reason the article is on Fuck (film) is for accessibility reasons and technical limitations with screen readers and some mobile devices. I hope this clears it up for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 03:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't; read the first para of the article. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, is your reply just an attempt to bait me - to make me rant and sound silly? If it's really not important, just make the fucking 1-letter edit. It's a page seen by millions every day, and right now it is giving the incorrect idea that this wiki is censored. Fix it please, thanks. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've read it and don't see where it says "the title is Fuck and not F★CK"... The wording there is for accessability reasons. The poster I linked is the correct "title". See NIN or KORN for other "accessability" related titles. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck is the official title; F★CK was allowed for use on promotional materials. See Fuck (film)#Title and marketing for the full explanation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

All the best trolls are administrators. Jehochman ^Talk 04:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more!

Sorry, is there a real problem here? I got pinged for this? I suggest we carry on this discussion just long enough for the F*CK to roll off the main page on its own, because that's how much it matters... --Jayron32 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, we have until about tomorrow until it slides off. ZappaOMati 04:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've "fixed" the article to note the title is (stylized as F★CK) as if the big ole poster there didn't make it clear enough... *sigh*. Dang ROGUE admins always trolling the anons... :p — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 04:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the current words works since it could imply that F★CK was the intended spelling of the film (stylized is in fact usually mentioned in articles when that is the case) whereas in reality it was only used for promotional puropses since several newspapers would not accept the term Fuck. The article clearly mentions that 'the theatrical as well as the DVD releases used Fuck the intended spelling. I think the lead needs to make it clear that F★CK was used by necessity for marketing and not the intended spelling.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This thread is fucked. -- œ^™ 06:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• This editorial decision was made and announced weeks ago in the close of the discussion the OP references, so no, there is no undoing it quickly now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia is censoring the name of a movie about freedom of speech on its main page - and ignoring the problem until it simply goes away. Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.30.86 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Somwhat f★cked, isn't it? ES&L 12:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not as important in itself as its effect on the next person who tries to use it as a precedent for their own piece of censorship. This is why IMO we should put up a protest against this seemingly minor short life change. Britmax (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's start voting.

• Fuck it Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Fuck off--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Fix it - after all, the movie's about censorship... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

See also User_talk:Jehochman#Fuck and [10]. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The precedent this sets isn't only censorship, it's that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules can now be ignored. Peter James (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

See also Fucking Åmål. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC).

Thank you - someone understands! Will you have my babies? 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

See also Tempest in a teapot, Make a mountain out of a molehill, hasty generalization. --Jayron32 20:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that freedom of speech and concerns about censorship are trivial. We seem to disagree about that - which is fine, disagreement is fine; I just ask that you stop splattering down any discussion - you rejected my admin edit request, you closed this thread as "Hopelessly fucked up", and refused to undo it.

From the comments here, there are at least as many people who are concerned as there are those who think it's trivial, so please at least allow discussion. It's important that Wikipedia remains neutral and does not succumb to opinions about what are and are not "naughty words". If you believe it is trivial - fine; step away. Please, stop stomping on this discussion - if other admins close this as disruptive, that might be acceptable, but right now you are involved; if this discussion is problematic, I'm sure other admins can deal with that. So please, don't override things and just close it for convenience - thanks. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I closed nothing. --Jayron32 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Jayron, I mistook you for Jeh (who closed the thread above). My bad, apologies. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

On 1st March, "Today's featured article" was Fuck (film). It was presented as "Fuck", because that's what it is called.

Now, in "recently featured..." on the main page it is linked as F★CK.

I believe that is an inappropriate form of censorship.

Please briefly say below if you think it should, right now, be linked as either "Fuck" or F★CK 88.104.30.86 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Fuck, as proposer, because Wikipedia must remain neutral and deciding that certain things need to be censored is antithesistic to the goals of the project. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

• Oh, for fuck's sake... Kurtis ^(talk) 00:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• What the F★CK is this for Kurtis? The discussion was closed already... Let's leave it that way... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Block check please

As I don't do this very often, could I please ask for an administrator to review the blocks I just made of HousePRLDN and Cybersmileg. The latter appears to be an organizational account promoting The Cybersmile Foundation, the article of which was created by the former, which appears to be a public relations agency. If I am in the wrong, please unblock as necessary. — Scott • talk 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Promotional Username with promotional article you have my deal of approval. It's also the softer block so all they have to do is change usernames at the least or create a new account. No biggie. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me; both usernames apparently violate WP:U#Promotional usernames, but I unchecked "block account creation" for the username changes. All the best, Miniapolis 00:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep in mind about the account creation setting when making similar blocks in future. Thanks both! — Scott • talk 12:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Allow account creation when doing a "soft" block (when you don't want someone editing under that account for username reasons but they're allowed to make a new account), but when doing a "hard" block (someone has a bad username and they're causing disruption, like spamming, vandalism, etc.) make sure to check it to prevent accounts from being created (which would constitute block evasion). The "spam username" blocks that you instituted against the editors, and the block templates you left, indicate that the blocks are intended to be "hard" blocks, whether that was your intention or not. It's important to make it clear when blocking an editor with a bad username whether the block is only for the username, or if it's also for other kinds of disruption, because that will help other administrators determine if the editor is evading a block if they create a new account. It also helps the editor that is blocked to figure out why they were blocked and what they're supposed to do about it. -- Atama頭 23:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

patient eyes sought

To untangle the RfC at Talk:Duck Dynasty which I fear is quite unlikely to get actual new eyes considering its nature and length at this point, and the length and nature of the discourse thereon. Collect (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As this RfC has been open all of six days, and you have been the main cause of discourse, especially the mischaracterizations of events, and my involvement, including numerous allegations, I find this posting odd. But if it gets others to look at the situation, including the BLP noticeboard thread from a few days ago - where your BLP violation concerns were dismissed, and they noted about the RfC on similar content in the biography article "overall quality of input at the RfC was quite poor, and the closure was very questionable" - then I hope more eyes will look at the situation. Since we are here maybe some people can offer opinions on this deletion? The content was entirely created from the Duck Dynasty article, intended as a spin out, but opinions were split. If it's allowed to exist, it might resolve most of the concerns of too much information about the controversy on the other two articles. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been far longer then 6 days in various forms. Right now as noted on the page you are the only editor pushing for this change. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The RfC was started late on 26 February. It is essentially the first time the content, which has been stable in the article since the controversy erupted in December 2013, has been discussed at the Duck Dynasty article. Myself and others gave up on the Phil Robertson article where "interesting" events transpired. The current RfC, which I think Collect poisoned, then continually disrupted, hasn't been well attended, but at least when they weren't involved, polite conversation was moving things forward. More input is certainly welcome. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Comics quote: "Nuff said." And note how genteelly the personal attacks get made here. Collect (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC) The prior RfC directly pertinent to the discussion was closed 16 Feb with [11] There is a clear consensus, that these comments shouldn't be included. Users supporting inclusion either didn't give any rationale or just vaguely waving with the WP:NPOV policy. Collect (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlog on UAA

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

---

There is a bit of backlog on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Any extra admin assistance will be helpful and appreciated. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• On it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Q re WP:3RRNO, ARBPIA/1RR, and sockpuppets

I'm pondering this edit, by Ribs Ribs and more Ribs (talk · contribs) (their very first edit). The edit summary ("classic original research") makes it clear this is not a new user -- so in other words, it's a sockpuppet. Now, WP:3RRNO says that a revert doesn't count per 3RR when dealing with an edit of a sockpuppet "of a blocked/banned user". Since the article in question is subject to WP:ARBPIA, there's another relevant point: the 1RR restriction does not apply when reverted edits made by anonymous IP editors. What troubles me about all of this is that it suggests an obvious strategy for someone who wants to escape the 1RR restriction: just create a new account, as often as necessary. There's no way to do a proper SPI here (in the sense of knowing who the sock master operating Mr Ribs is), so we can't know we're dealing with a blocked/banned user here (as per WP:3RRNO), and it's not an anonymous IP editor (so a revert isn't exempt from 1RR anyway). There's not enough going on to warrant semi-protection (though as you can see from the article history the actions of Mr Ribs are only the latest in a series). Under the circumstances, then, I'm not going to touch it -- by the rules I could be blocked if I exceeded 1RR. But I do wonder if this is the way we want things to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've wondered about that. It's a throwaway account—no problem to the user if the account is blocked—yet there is nothing that an established editor can do to compete with such POV pushing. And, any minute now someone is going to completely miss the point and say the sock needs to be notified. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately that's pretty much standard operating procedure in the ARBPIA topic area, creating throwaway accounts for block/topic ban evasion and to subvert the rules. It seems policy isn't really designed to deal with the extraordinarily level of dishonesty amongst block/topic ban evading nationalists in ARBPIA. There was talk sometime ago of requiring editors to have make something like 500 edits before they could edit in ARBPIA, but it didn't get anywhere. I would expect that the common compulsions (e.g. erasing/transforming certain words such as Palestine, Palestinian, occupied etc, claiming ownership of Jerusalem, Golan Heights etc, the usual disruptive nonsense that happens every single day) and the amazing lack of ethics exhibited by many people would render any kind of protection redundant pretty quickly. Assuming good faith for new accounts is certainly the wrong strategy in ARBPIA based on the articles I have looked at in detail where the probability of an account with less than 500 edits being a sock was greater than 50%. I don't know what the solution is, but most of my edits in ARBPIA for many years now have been to try to erase the effects of the presence of these kinds of editors, with limited success. I think several other editors in ARBPIA spend at least some of their time dealing with this too. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And employment of the strategy is not confined to the ARBPIA topic area.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

True, but there's a paradox for areas where a 1RR applies: established editors can't revert the "new" editors as often, so the extent of edit-warring is lower (as intended), hence there's less perceived need for semi-protection. The point is that the combination of these 3 factors (1RR, the fact that exclusion rules for reverts apply only to socks of banned/blocked users, and the fact that exclusion rules for 1RR apply only to IP editors) creates a particular difficulty for dealing with throw-aways in areas like Israel/Palestine. Even semi-protection wouldn't do it, though -- an established user inclined to create throw-aways would know how to get auto-confirmed quickly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) What if PC protection is applied to articles where this appears to be the case. This would disallow IPs from being disruptive in 1RR cases and in other cases where 1RR does not apply, the user would have to make 10 edits and wait 4 days to be able to make a single POV revert, which seems like it would get old to the user fairly quickly. Also, I saw someone above mention that there is't quit enough disruption to warrant semi protection, but there is likely enough for PC1 I would think. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Making 10 edits and waiting 4 days isn't an effective barrier in ARBPIA. Have a look at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_AndresHerutJaim for example. That is just one person. There are many. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, things like PC and semi-protection may have unintended consequences. For example, in one of the articles I looked at, the proportion of (confirmed) sock related edits and the probability of an edit being made by a sock rather than an apparently new non-sock (with < 500 edits) actually went up during semi-protection. I assume protection can tip the scale against genuinely new editors towards editors who don't hesitate to break the block/ban evasion rules. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

unproductive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This feels like a case of someone who Says someone is a sockpuppet due to a good first edit. Remember, they could of read all the articles about No Orgianal Research. Don`t Base if someone is a sockpuppet off of their Proficiency. (Also, I tried to be as Tactful as possible with this comment.) Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Happy Attack Dog, your lack of experience is showing here. What you say is certainly possible, but it is extremely unlikely - and I thought you were going to concentrate on dealing with mainspace vandalism and stop commenting on the noticeboards until you had a better grasp on how things work around this place? BMK (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Don`t Base if someone is a sockpuppet off of their Proficiency —— what the heck is that suppose to mean? Does that mean that CIR is all wrong? Happy Attack Dog, you certainly have lost me with that ridiculous comment... — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 16:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Basing things on feelings is not a useful approach in ARBPIA. I don't know whether Ribs Ribs and more Ribs is a sockpuppet but they are statistically more likely to be a block/topic ban evading editor than not. That is just how it is in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Well, that begs the question, Did the user`s edits appear to be in good faith? If yes, Then Why would it be a sockpuppet of a blocked/banned user? If not, Then It might be so. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC) No, it doesn't and you comment seems to be an interference to the progress of this discussion. The very first sentence of this thread states (their very first edit). The edit summary ("classic original research") makes it clear this is not a new user You're comment ignores that statement, and therefore requires backpedaling, thereby detracting from any progress being made here. The statement you made is of a questionable nature, in my assessment.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Well, couldn't they just have edited from a IP before becoming a user? Does this users name bear any resemblance to another user that is troublesome? Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is one notorious pro-Israel editor whose classic edit summary (when reverting) involves claiming original research. They are still editing, but topic banned from conflict-related articles. Number 57 22:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In one of the WP:ARBAA2 enforcements a 500-edit rule was imposed that made it easier to take action against brand-new POV-pushing accounts. There was an existing 1RR rule providing that IP edits could be reverted without counting against the 1RR limit. Per an AE decision this was broadened out (for just the Nagorno-Karabakh article) so you that any editor could revert a registered account with fewer than 500 edits without thereby breaking 1RR. This rule was only imposed on one article and there has been no groundswell of support for doing this more widely. The assumption is that sockmasters have enough patience to make 10 edits to get confirmed but usually they don't have enough patience for 500 edits. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at "WP:ANRFC"

There is a significant backlog at WP:ANRFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible bot malfunctioning?

Not sure if a bot is malfunctioning or it's just some IP but 10.4.0.34, 10.4.0.220 seems to use the word bot in their edit summaries. I've tried using Geolocate and Traceroute but it seems like a private IP which can not be identified. --///EuroCarGT 22:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like User:HBC AIV helperbot5 got logged out. @JamesR: can you take a look? 28bytes (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Legobot has also been editing logged out. I'm not sure if that IP is Legobot or not, but the IP making Legobot's edits earlier today looked just like that. Gloss • talk 22:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Same thing for Lowercase sigmabot and that bot who clears sandboxes. ///EuroCarGT 22:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) 10.4.1.102 - this is the IP that Legobot was editing from. The bot owner seems to be aware, but unable to fix the issue at the moment. Gloss • talk 22:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case it's probably some sort of Toolserver or Labs glitch, whichever is currently hosting those bots. Perhaps someone who's on IRC (I am not) could ping the Labs channel? 28bytes (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

10.4.0.156 is another one. Seems like it's the AIV bot. ///EuroCarGT 22:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done [18:06] == Technical_13 [~T13@wikimedia/Technical-13] has joined #wikimedia-labs

[18:06] <Technical_13> I'm sure everyone here is already aware, but per request of 28bytes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Possible_bot_malfunctioning.3F — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Per https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62288 - could you check if this is fixed? - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to block the IPs (anonymous only) until this problem is fixed? Having the IP recent changes list flooded by the bots is distracting, to say the least. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure there's a show/hide bot edits option in recent changes. -- œ^™ 02:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is. However, said option is only effective for bots which edit while logged in to a bot flagged account and utilize the option to bot flag the edits. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• OlEnglish, what David said... If they are not logged in, then they are not "bot" flagged edits... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Don't block any internal IP addresses as it will cause misdirected XFF blocks. Legoktm (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• If the usual protective measure against logged out bots cannot be deployed, then it is incumbent on the bot operators using Labs to write code that absolutely, positively, ensures logged in status before making edits. I suggest shutting down the affected bots on Labs, by a sysadmin if necessary, until this deficiency is rectified. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• When multiple bots by multiple operators (all based on the same server) suddenly start editing logged out at the same time, it's not a problem with the bots or the bot operators. It's a problem with the server, and sysadmins need to spend their time preventing this from recurring rather than shutting down bots that are performing useful and helpful tasks. Nyttend (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• The server probably is responsible for logging the bots out. However, I cannot believe that the server is somehow presenting bogus information through the API to convince the bots that they are really logged in. Rather, it would appear as though the bots do not automatically shut down when they are logged out. This is a serious design flaw in bots which operate on a server whose IPs we dare not block, even anon only. Are the bot tasks really so useful and helpful that we would want to have them performed while logged out? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is certainly not acceptable for the logged-out bot to be deleting material from pages when it has not added that material to the archive, but that has been happening in a number of cases. The bots should be shut down until they are working properly. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with David, please shut down the archiving bot until this issue has been resolved (and roll back all of it's edits made while logged out so that none of those conversations will be lost. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

With any luck, this edit should stop User:Lowercase sigmabot III from archiving any more discussions, even while it is logged out. I'll leave the rolling back to others, as I'm off to bed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've re-enabled the bot now, as the bug seems to have been fixed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not an issue with labs as Cyberbot is clearly not malfunctioning. Also, like David says, the bots can be designed to simply not edit if logged out. My bot's framework is designed to do just that.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Temporarily Online} 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• There does seem to be an issue since several days that make sessions not last as long as they should; logging out bots (and people) after a couple of hours. Operations is aware of the issue.

  That said, any bot that edits while logged out is buggy – and in violation of the bot policy. They must perform no edit unless they are certain they are logged in (using assert=bot on API calls is the easiest way). — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  • (Ah, and as an update, the issue has been tracked down and squished as well: T64288). — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Venugopalbk

Created again after deletion--Musamies (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

...and can you point out where you a) discussed this with them first, and b) advised them that you have reported them here to WP:AN as is required? Yes, I've deleted, salted, and advised them ... but part of that is YOUR job before and after coming here DP 10:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for taking care of it, DP. Please don't bite people for reporting a problem here, even if they didn't do it perfectly. It doesn't help the climate and temper of the place. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC).

Indeffed after the page was reposted by a sockpuppet at User:Bkvenugopalbos. MER-C 13:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Abuse response - Waiting for Investigation

Hey, Admins,
There are about two dozen IP user accounts, sitting in this category for the past two years, waiting for investigation. The Abuse project page is now marked as "inactive" so I'd like to know if these reports should be deleted or archived. If they are to be archived, please let me know the appropriate category where they should go. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say: close them all as stale. *shrugs* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like basic housekeeping but an act that requires admin tools which I don't have access to. Anyone? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If nobody else gets around to it first, I'll deal with it when I have time. -- Atama頭 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I went to do it earlier, but I didn't see anything specific that needed to be done. What do you mean by "close them as stale"? Also, what requires admin tools? I didn't notice any protected pages. Nyttend (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what is involved with "closing" a page. I assumed it required admin tools or should be done by an admin since it involves abuse investigations. It is definitely an area of Wikipedia I have no experience in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So, to illuminate this issue, the "abuse response" category is part of the Wikiproject at WP:ABUSE, which is an inactive project. The "Waiting for Investigation" page you found has been waiting for years because it's defunct. To clear up any future confusion, I added the historical template and removed the backlog template. According to the talk page for the project, most abuse cases should go to WP:AIV and long-term abuse goes to WP:LTA. -- Atama頭 16:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Atama. Actually, I came to AN in the fall because WP:ABUSE was still listed on the Noticeboard template at the topic of the page (now it just links to long-term abuse) which resulted in that inactive designation. I was actually hoping to revive the project but the consensus was that its usefulness, along with its volunteers, had long since passed.

I was most concerned about these odd investigation pages, I could just remove Category:Abuse response, leaving this category in Inactive Projects, but it seems like these pages should be deleted. Should I propose them at AfD or can an admin just delete them? Thanks for your help with this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I meant just do whatever procedure was normally done when marking a case as closed, change the status, move them to the archive, I dunno. Just to get them out of the current "pending" status. This shouldn't need MfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing to do is "close" the cases as usual (there are still directions on the WikiProject page on how to do that), then delete the category as empty afterward (since it will never be used again as long as the project is inactive). That's probably preferable to marking as historical and ignoring, since there shouldn't be anything of historical importance in the category (the individual cases that belonged to the category are a difference matter). Things are relatively quiet in the areas I've been working in lately so I could take this on myself, since I've already gotten involved. -- Atama頭 17:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm holding off on deleting the category, but I'm closing all cases marked as "Waiting for Investigation", "Open", or "On Hold". I'm closing them more-or-less the way they're supposed to be (marking status as closed and putting the standard Abuse archive templates) and letting them go into the closed category as usual, with the edit summary that WP:ABUSE is inactive. -- Atama頭 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much, Atama! So speedy! Thanks for taking this on. Loose ends like this drive me nuts. I appreciate you following-up on this request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(←) Everything is done now, the only populated categories for cases are now "closed", "archived", or "rejected". The only exception being Wikipedia talk:Vandalism which is still in the "Waiting for Investigation" category, and I can't figure out how to remove it from that category. I see the category at the bottom of the page, but I don't see it when editing the page, so there must be some transclusion I can't figure out.

Fixed. 153.2.247.31 (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, I ran into a discussion on the vandalism policy talk page asking about the status of the abuse response project, and pointing out that it's still listed as a place to go to report vandalism in the guidelines section of the policy. I suggested that we should just remove any mention of it from the policy, as it is currently misleading people into thinking that they should go to a deprecated page for an inactive project to report vandalism. I wasn't quite ready to be bold enough yet to remove it from the policy myself, but I'm tempted. -- Atama頭 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Closure for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arzel.2

I suggest that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arzel.2 be closed and the following be the summary:

There is significant disagreement regarding the behavior of Arzel. Some editors believe that Arzel acts on the belief that Wikipedia reflects a "liberal bias". He thinks that mainstream media and academic writing reflect this bias and tries to correct that, by balancing "liberal" views with "conservative" ones. However, that is contrary to the policy of neutrality, which requires views to be presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Many editors believe that he has shown WP:Battleground behavior in correcting these perceived biases.

On the other hand, some editors feel that the RFC itself is an example of battleground behavior. They believe the RFC is supported by numerous left-leaning editors due to their objections to the right-leaning editor disagreeing with edits they make that largely favor their left-leaning views. They argue that there is a group of partisan editors objecting to another editor impeding their efforts to make Wikipedia articles more partisan.

There is no movement in the WP:RFC/U. The last edit made was on 21 February. The above summary is a reasonable representation of the comments made in the WP:RFC/U. I suggest that it be closed with the above summary.Casprings (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is Casprings opinion, nothing more and should be viewed as a singular opinion. Not even sure why this editor is bringing this here. Arzel (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Casprings, let me get this straight: you've basically taken part of the most popular "pro-Arzel" and part of the most popular "anti-Arzel" sections and condensed them into your proposed summary? Not objecting or anything like that; I'm just trying to understand where you got the summary. Nyttend (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, basically. Tried to provide the shortest neutral summary possible. Casprings (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Although Arzel disagrees, I think you did a good job. We have multiple outside view sections basically supporting Arzel and multiple outside view sections basically opposing him (plus one, the NE Ent section, that does neither), and both perspectives have gotten a substantial percentage of support. There's clearly no consensus either way in this situation. I'd close it myself with your summary, but (1) I'm not clear if admin-closes are standard/normal/acceptable/unnecessary for RFCUs, and (2) I signed one of the positions. Nyttend (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not normal, according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing. However, this is clearly heading towards a close for inactivity. I think having a short neutral summary would be a better choice.Casprings (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I support this summary, and I'd also close it except that I share the first concern that Nyttend has (not the second one since I haven't participated). I think the summary addresses both "sides" of the issue, acknowledging both the concerns about Azrel and also the concerns about some of those that oppose Azrel. -- Atama頭 00:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

UTC)

Rather normal policy or not, it is what should be done here. In the future, those uninvolved can quickly read it and understand what is basically (still) at dispute. Defining the dispute is core to resolving and disagreement, I think. If it isn't policy to provide a neutral summary of RFC/U that can't be closed on agreement, it really should be policy that such a close is at least optional. Casprings (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this "summary" is that it is a false summary. I have never advocated using conservative sources to balance liberal sources. I specifically have stated that I do not use highly partisan sources at all. Casprings already has an animous against me because of their article regarding Rape and Pregnency during the 2012 election, so I refuse their summary. Other than that, Casprings was not a party to this poorly contrived RfC and I did not even participate because one of the two initiators never in good faith worked with me prior to the initiation. Go ahead and close it, it is meaningless partisan tripe being presented as a way to try and silence. If your really want a summary of my position it was clearly stated. You have editors relying on highly partisan sources such as MMfA and the Daily Kos and are treating them as reliable. If what these sources have to say is worthy of inclusion then less partisan sources will also have mentioned them. Otherwise you could (in the case of FNC) have an article that is a book of MMfA complaints. Without some standard of inclusion, WP becomes little more than an WP:ATTACK on the subject, which is what many of these editors seem wont to do. Arzel (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What you need to understand about closing an RFCU (or any other kind of RfC) is that the close isn't going to reflect the opinion of the closer (it definitely shouldn't), it's meant to reflect the consensus of people contributing to the RfC. If your RFCU attracts a number of your detractors, the closure is inevitably going to include negativity about you. -- Atama頭 16:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, please reread the summary. It basically says "Some participants say this, and others say that". Who's right or wrong isn't relevant to the closure: the closure's simply remarking on the fact that people disagree and weren't able to come to a consensus on whether you're at fault or whether you're the victim. The closing summary makes no statement about you at all: the entire statement discusses what other people have said. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I realize that, but I think it is important to see that part of this summary is not based in reality. Those editors could as just as much thought that I was an orange. It calls into question whether they even read anything on the RfC. Arzel (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• On a side note, I started a policy RFC to change the policy. An uninvolved editor who closes an RFC/U due to inactivty should be encouraged to provide a neutral closing. The RFC can be found here.Casprings (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:IndianPanda

User:IndianPanda seems to have created a second (unacknowledged) username, which was initially called <redacted>, then moved to User:WOWIndian by Acalamari. IndianPanda admits they are WOWIndian with this edit: [12]

IndianPanda then created a dozen usertalk pages for nonexistent users; the talk pages consist of a welcome message. The usertalk pages they created can be seen here: [13]

This came to my attention because of the attempt by IndianPanda to create an RfA for WOWIndian. [14]

I think this may all date back to IndianPanda's complaint about administrator DangerousPanda using multiple accounts as DP and ESL. IndianPanda posted their complaint first at the Teahouse ‪Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions‬#Query regarding signature and then at ANI ‪Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Monopoly on Wikipedia.

I considered reporting this as a sockpuppet attempt, but I think it is more generally a case of disruptive editing. Also, I don't know if creating usertalk pages without actually registering a username is considered sockpuppetry or not.

ESL has already warned IndianPanda that their edits are becoming disruptive. [15] IndianPanda acknowledged that warning here. [16]. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WOWIndian is actually the older account, dating to January 2012. I'm taking the liberty of redacting the original name of that account. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• *sigh* I'm loathe to call this current activity as "disruptive". In sincerely believe that they're misguided and have a very faint understanding of the policies and guidelines, but they're not quite fully-disruptive nor 100% incompetent. I obviously have no issue with the Welcomes they provided in theory, except they're Welcoming people who haven't even made a single edit - the Welcome template should typically relate to their first couple of edits, if not we'd simply have a bot welcoming every new account. The RFA might have been a revenge attempt, but after my sincere reach out to them, they honestly responded "so what should I do now". I'm not sure how the 2 accounts meet WP:SOCK#LEGIT as of yet. Something in my mind tells me I had seen the WOWIndian account before ... which does, indeed, scare me that the IndianPanda was an attempted mimicry, however...speaking of the WOWIndian account, there was ZERO need to redact their original account name as it was a WP:UNC and not a WP:CLEANSTART, and the old username is clearly labelled in the change log. Is he needing mentoring? I dunno. Their command of the language is not strong (based on their numerous misunderstandings), and I wonder about maturity...but those are just wonderings. DP 16:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for considering my contributions. As you've mentioned above that I raised the question on the pages Teahouse and ANI about my problems DangerPand, which simply means that I have tried to resolve the issues by bring it in light of other contributors because I don't believe on monopoly. I think you have forgotten to see the user pages of my both the username where I have placed a userbox regarding alternative accounts which does not meets the sockpuppet blocking standards.

I would like to know from you that in how many edits you have found disruptive editing?

User:Yngvadottir It is my request that please see the cause of changing username also read the policies on Wikipedia:Username_policy & Wikipedia:Changing_username ♪♫•*¨*• .¸¸wOWINdia^talk 16:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Please let me know where it is mentioned on the Wikiepdia that creating a talkpages of existing users is the policy violation? (I would like to request you that please see the history of those users for creation date of their accounts.) ♪♫•*¨*• .¸¸wOWINdia^talk 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that IndianPanda/WOWIndian has now acknowledged the two accounts. And I was mistaken about the talk pages being for "nonexistent" users; they were for users who had (in most cases) not yet performed a single edit or created a userpage. So I conclude that this user is NOT being disruptive and I withdraw my complaint. I trust IndianPanda/WOWIndian will listen to the good advice they have been given by multiple experienced editors and become a productive editor here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "IndianPanda then created a dozen usertalk pages for nonexistent users" - I checked every single one of those accounts that IndianPanda left a welcome template for today, and each one of them was a legitimate account (I checked the logs of each user and saw an account creation log for today). I don't see the disruption in leaving a welcome template for new editors. I admit it's a little odd to leave a template that includes a thank you for an editors contributions when the editor hasn't actually made any, but the sentiment isn't a bad one. I can't say I'm 100% comfortable with an editor who has a shaky grasp of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and overall culture being the one to welcome people (since those people may be tempted to go to IP for advice or assistance) but the template itself mostly just provides links to useful areas for a new editor to find help and isn't offering personal help from IP (in fact, they didn't even sign the template most of the time). So whatever disruption is coming from IP, it's not coming from the welcome templates. -- Atama頭 17:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Shame on you

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 see on the list of goverment of all the world that you separate cyprus in 2 goverments..CYPRUS and northen cyprus..You have to learn that northen cyprus is not a regognized state and the only country in the earth that regognize it as a state is turky and guess why..Turks made an invasion in Cyprus and claim north cyprus with violent and they made a war .They killed many people and childrens they made people of cyprus move out of their houses and you put northern cyprus on list as a state??? SHAME ON YOU I THOUGHT WIKIPEDIA WAS A GOOD SITE BUT ITS NOT...You can wrote the story of cyprus and how turks invade in cyprus and claim our half coutry .....I will wait for correct your the misinformations or i will report wikipedia and i will let many people learn about that who thinks wikipedia is a good site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.220.197 (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, shame on us - we didn't write Wikipedia, people like YOU did. If there's an error on the article, go to its talkpage, suggest improvements, and provide links to sources that support your changes. That's how Wikipedia works, and that's why we ARE a "good site" ES&L 12:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Northern Cyprus article makes it clear (at the very beginning of the article) that it is a "self-declared state", and further states, "Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus." Did you even read the article? We even have an article called Human rights in Northern Cyprus which documents problems that have occurred in that area. Rather that "reporting Wikipedia" (to whom?!) perhaps you should take the time to actually read what you're complaining about. -- Atama頭 16:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Aheshaash

Duck, please. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Quack whacked. -- Atama頭 02:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:AGK

OP agrees that any discussion should take place in another venue --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:AGK has delete what I see as productive talk page comments here[17] and here[18]. This included the comment by User:Cullen328 "Will, I hope that ArbCom takes up your appeal and agrees to allow you to return to editing." which he deleted twice. This raises concerns that some within arbcom appear to want to operate in complete secrecy with little / no oversight. AGK's justification is here [19]. I guess the question is what defines "productive" as it is sort of in the eye of the beholder. Additionally as I am not editing at anyones request it is not WP:PROXYING as so claimed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC) You are posting a banned user's edits for him. Will wanted them posted, and you made it happen. This actually is proxying. The community has held, basically since its creation, that banned users may not edit the project. This applies particularly when their edits include a long polemic proclaiming their innocence and playing down the extent of the harassment for which they were banned. ArbCom operates with the "complete secrecy" you describe because the arbitration policy – written and confirmed by the community, not the committee – provides for appeals to be heard by email. There are very good reasons for this; that you think the only one is that we want there to be "no oversight" is more or less preposterous. This is not about the edits being "productive" (if only it were, as they plainly aren't). It is not about ArbCom secrecy. It is about you insisting things be done your way, but policy and reason requiring they be done in exactly the opposite way. Please drop the stick. This comment is not posted on behalf of the committee. With this editor making sweeping, one-line accusations across the project tonight, I have not had the opportunity to consult my colleagues on this matter. AGK [•] 22:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I made a good faith comment on Will Beback's talk page, and also on Newyorkbrad's. I have no intention of pushing the matter and have no criticisms of AGK or ArbCom at this time. I readily concede that there are things I don't know, and shouldn't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I actually liked your comment at WBB's talk page, and agreed with it myself. Unintentionally or not, you struck at the heart of the matter :-). AGK [•] 22:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Per "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor". I am not editing nor have I ever edited at anyones direction. I have not heard from Will in many months. With respect to whether or not the content added was a "polemic proclaiming their innocence" would recommend individuals look and decide themselves. It appears that the appeal was send by email. I have never insisted thing be done "my way" and there is no "stick". This is about the ability to discuss "the arbitration policy – written and confirmed by the community" which I guess should eventually take place here Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Policy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Are you seriously trying to suggest Will Beback's TP attack on his victims is a test case for freedom of speech vis-à-vis the arbitration policy? (And could you explain to the community why you are forum shopping about this issue across four venues?) AGK [•] 22:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RM backlogged too

As of right now there are 80 backlogged move requests at RMCD. A number of them are pretty straight forward (I'd do it myself but they either involve page moves I can't complete as a non-admin or discussions I've participated in). Hot Stop talk-contribs 07:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Scott

I've asked Scott to not interact with me in an aggressive personally attacking way. Due to the fact that He is unable/unwilling to do that, I'm requesting an interaction ban. He doesn't need to be posting any more "advice" on my talk page or exhibiting an inability to remain CALM and discuss things. As for the discussion on WT:Redirect, while I understand that it is annoying to have the page reload to take you to a different section of the page when viewing from a mobile device (I do a lot of viewing and editing from mobile in desktop view), it is exactly this reloading that encourages people to expand the section and create the WP:SPINOUT, so that it is no longer a redirect to a different section of the page, but instead an entirely new page full of content. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be an improvement if you didn't template him for "refactoring your talk: comments", when what he'd actually done was to hat a section on that talk: page. You might not like such a snub, but it ain't refactoring or against WP:TPO in the way you seem to think. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• In an attempt to hide my comments effectively deleting them from view, against the talk page guidelines, simply because he did not like my comments. That's not acceptable. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not against talkpage guidelines. But, you certainly cannot tell him to leave you alone when you're going to wrongly template them. It's, as you say, "not acceptable" DP 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Collapse top may be relevant, though. "These templates should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing" (my emphasis). The last part implies the use of that template openly accused Technical13 of being disruptive by disagreeing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay. So, quick note: if you want to stop interacting with Scott, maybe you should just, y'know, stop interacting with Scott. You were the one who jumped into that thread; if you didn't want to interact with Scott, you shouldn't have chosen to participate in a thread that Scott had started. It certainly looks like a good idea for the two of you to stop interacting with each other, but rather than dealing with the inevitable messiness of a formal interaction ban, just deciding to stay away from each other is probably worth a shot. I doubt Scott would be opposed to it; his actions here today were all reactions to yours; if you hadn't made yours, he wouldn't have made his. Not assigning fault at all, just noting that you're the initiator of the contact here. More later. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I made a comment on the thread... None of what I said/asked in that post was personal towards Scott at all, and once everything cooled off, and Scott looked it over again and dug into the history of the policy, he understood what I was saying that it was a reasonable sentence in regards to the paragraph it was located in and made an agreeable change to disambiguate the wording that may not have been clear to everyone, of which I thanked him for both privately and publicly. Why all the shouting and name calling and dehumanizing was necessary to get there, I'm still unsure and am fairly thick skinned, so I'll just let it go in hopes that Scott will be more willing to calmly discuss future issues, should they arise, and dig in to figure out the differences together. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support 2-way interaction ban, but in the hope that a full-blown formal !vote will not be necessary as both participants will voluntarily agree to the interaction ban (one already has) to avoid further disruption and shouty shouty behaviour. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Scott does have some history in making general policy discussions personal with regards to T13: see [20]; it was suggested he moved his personal comments of a policy talk page but choose not to so. NE Ent 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• If he could get past thinking everything is personal, I think that him and I could collaborate in a productive manner just fine. I've never met him, don't expect to ever meet him, and nothing I say in a discussion is intended to be personal towards him. If I have ever said anything that sounded personal, I apologize and I'm fairly certain it wasn't meant in a personal way (although I do say stuff that comes out wrong when I'm frustrated and having difficulties in assuming good faith because I'm receiving uncivil, harassing, personal attacks. As hard as I have been working on improving myself there, I will try a little bit harder in Scott's case, because I understand there is tension. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• One of the editors here is Randy in Boise. Of course, as that essay suggests, they may not realize that. Another editor here knows who I'm talking about, but could learn how to better deal with such editors, as they are not rarely found editing Wikipedia. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin noticeboard stalker)

WP:AFD backlog

I've just cleared out all the days from 22-25 February (probably the ones that no-one else wanted to close, so will probably find myself at DRV soon), but there are still 153 AFDs outstanding from 26 Feb to date. It's time for sleep here though, so some more eyes would be good. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned out several dozen today, but around 100 remain. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Two uasers with same page

User:Shahzab Jamal and User:Shahzaib Jamal seemd to create same page--Musamies (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there are two users who each have posted similar material (see user page of first user):

• Shahzab Jamal (talk · contribs)
• Shahzaib Jamal (talk · contribs)
• Shahzaib Jamal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's evidently the same guy, only here to write about himself. I have explained NOTFACEBOOK and NOTWEBHOST and asked him to pick one account and use only that one. I will keep an eye on him. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

On checking further, I find that the first account, Shahzaib Jamal, had its user page salted for repeated self-promotion and its uploads mass-deleted from Commons. The second account, Shahzab Jamal, is evidently an attempt to evade those restrictions, and I have blocked it as a sock. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Clarification request: BLP special enforcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

Discuss this

For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Password posting

What are we supposed to do when a (already blocked) vandal posts on his talk page, "My SUL login is xxxxx"? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ask for revdel? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The account gets locked by a steward, usually. → Call me Hahc21 05:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if there's substantial crosswiki edits, that is. Password should be oversighted though. That being said User:Jpgordon if it is who I think it is... --Rschen7754 05:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I could take care of this for me please? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Rschen7754 This is a long term abuse case. I don't remember who it is but an account with the same password was attacking ArbCom pages, posted the password and was globally locked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Thecodingproject and his edit warring.

Look that the contribs of User:Thecodingproject , this fruitloop edit wars and causes problems for the rest of us decent folk. --Sammen Salmonord (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Comment please note [21] and [22]. The OP seems to erroneously regard any disagreement with them or reversion of their edits as edit warring. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a WP:BOOMERANG!

Special:Contributions/Sammen Salmonord is a strange read. Equal parts naivety and that just-too-already-WP-familiar scent of old socks. None of it is edifying. We really do not need a schism into the "frootloops" and the "decent folI". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there's any connection with User:Hoppingalten (sic) [23] [24] who evidentally per their user page, wrote the "runaway success of the 'How to Loose Weight' Trilogy". Nil Einne (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User thecodingproject has removed a reasonable comment that I put in the talk page of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. This is just one example of the headaches that this user is causing. Since it is disruptive, the user should be blocked for 72 hours or a week which will give the news time to learn of the probable crash. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that was on purpose. If you look at their edit, your comment was removed while they were fixing their own previous comments. It may have been an honest mistake. Even I accidentally removed another editor's comment on a talk page a couple of days ago, and I'm a relatively experienced editor. -- Atama頭 13:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible range block

Any chance of a range block for the following? This has been ongoing since January. I've been blocking the IPs over the last few days, one at a time, but it needs either a range block or a lot of semi-protected articles. Most of the BLP articles had unsourced birth dates to begin with but I have taken some of them out and some others have since been sourced. However, the IPs don't always like the source and removes it. I've listed them in a rough chronological order and some differences to show what they are up to. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• 41.69.71.76 (contribs · talk · block log) unsourced day and month, year does have a source in the external links
• 197.132.158.7 (contribs · talk · block log), same as above, inflates the number of aircraft
• 197.132.59.245 (contribs · talk · block log), Judy Gingell again
• 197.132.255.201 (contribs · talk · block log), only made one edit
• 196.221.144.242 (contribs · talk · block log), only made one edit
• 197.135.98.102 (contribs · talk · block log), only made two edits
• 197.132.239.60 (contribs · talk · block log), only made three edits
• 197.132.236.186 (contribs · talk · block log), only made four edits
• 197.132.248.164 (contribs · talk · block log), adds unsourced day and month, also place of birth, changes two good references to dead ones and changes the date in the body of the articles, changes correctly sourced date to something else, same as previous but different person, same as before, more of the same, changing the dates so the new premier starts the day after the old one terminates but not shown in source, adds unsourced date of birth
• 197.132.166.54 (contribs · block log), adds day, month and birthplace
• 197.132.251.162 (contribs · talk · block log)}, only made one edit

Around here I started removing the unsourced birth dates.

• 41.69.40.77 (contribs · talk · block log), some of the unsourced birth dates have been removed but they get added back, and again, changes a direct link to a redirect, unsourced birth date, unsourced birth date
• 41.69.79.70 (contribs · talk · block log), unsourced birth date
• 41.69.0.50 (contribs · talk · block log), unsourced birth date
• Moatassemakmal (contribs · talk · block log), creates an account but continues on in the same mannar, removes source that gives year and adds unsourced day and month, day and month not in source and neither is the place of birth
• 41.69.78.154 (contribs · block log)
• 41.69.44.243 (contribs · block log), great edit summary removes the source and adds unsourced
• 41.69.56.31 (contribs · block log), usual unsourced
• 41.69.16.32 (contribs · block log), removes sourced and adds unsourced
• 41.69.19.76 (contribs · block log), unsourced birth date
• 41.69.109.172 (contribs · block log), removes sourced and adds unsourced
• 41.69.28.18 (contribs · block log), removes sourced and adds unsourced

This looks like a person who has both mobile and internet with Vodaphone and is taking advantage of the very dynamic IPs assigned to them. And by the look of them they are data routers not the actual IP the person is using (ie they use an IP and vodaphone assigns the traffic any any of the IPs we've seen so far). I've anonblocked 41.69.0.0/17 for a few days which will hopefully give us some relief and an idea of how much control they have over the IP which exits to Wikipedia.

Thanks User:Callanecc. I looked at the rangeblock helper but it said I would be blocking 4,000,000,000 IPs which seemed a little excessive. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. If your interested try putting them in smaller groups into the rangeblock helper (eg all of the 41.69... ones then all of the 197.132 ones). That lets you target the different ranges better. The other thing you need to do is do a WHOIS of the different IPs (generally only need to do it down to the number after the second dot. That'll show you the ranges that each of the IPs is registered in. With the /17 block I've actually blocked a few different data routes which are all owned (along with many more) by Vodaphone in Egypt. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad internet, help

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 just wanna nominate Tseng Kwong Chi for deletion as 'not notable'. I tried, but my internet failed. Tried to make an account and do all thecomplicated stuff, but the pages are not lo0ading. Help pls, thx, Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the AfD went through, so even if the pages aren't loading for you, they're still there. -- Atama頭 22:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you did it correctly. The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tseng Kwong Chi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems like after some issues with my connection I was able to create the AfD.

This thread can be closed. Thanks. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I also transcluded the AfD to today's log for you and added some deletion sorting templates. -- Atama頭 23:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

HELP! One of your administrators has been sending me dirty and threatening emails

(non-admin closure) This is not the place for any discussion. Wikipedia:Threats of violence says; If you feel there is a real world threat against your physical well-being, email your complaint to emergencywikimedia.org. Otherwise, emailing your complaint to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org should suffice. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how to report an administrator who has been sending me dirty and threatening emails? This has been going on for several weeks. At first, I thought it will stop but the emails have gotten worst. Although I was not a regular editor, I used to contribute to Wiki but decided to stop some weeks ago. This administrator has somehow gotten hold of my email address and the harrassment has escalated. Thanks.188.29.69.244 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you forward your complaint and full details to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org.

For quite obvious reasons, it's best not to discuss it here. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Without getting into any details of this particular case, I would like to point out that there is such a thing as a Joe job. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No this is no "joe jobe." This is a conceited effort by one individual to harass me. Everything points to this person. I know is him. 188.30.195.39 (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know the details and I certainly don't want them discussed here, so I am going to stop responding here and leave this in the capable hands of the file folks at oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to you adminstarator

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.

---

My request is that wikipedia is for world not only for india and america,we know that wikipedia want reliable sources,we know that wikipedia is not hosting website. but our group created to much article about BAlochi films and baloch actor and director,recently our group created 4 or 5 articles.These are DranDeh or Mani Petha Brath Nest, Saeed Shad, Dr Haneef Shareef.But the user of wikipedia creating too much problems for these articles they are adding PROD tags or deletion request.So my requst is this that we created these article these are real films or real actors or directors.We all know that Internet Movie Database(IMDB) is the biggest site for movie ,in IMDB these films are listed then it means these are real films.So request to you that to say your user that don't add to many Tags or deletion in these article,hope you will make changes in these article and you will delete these unnecassries tags.God Bless you.119.157.151.178 (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

All articles need to meet WP:NOTABILITY. It is up to the authors to show that any article meets our requirements. IMDB is not a reliable source for establishing notability. You many also want to read our policy on conflicts of interest. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This comes from the same article creator, blocked temporarily. He's evading block through IP's and has posted the same plea at several currently active AfDs. AFD-Mani Petha Brath Nest, AFD-DranDeh, AFD-Saeed Shad. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Redirect from alternative language

I need an admin's help to create the following page (I guess you'll have to copy and paste it): ฮอโลคอสต์. This is a redirect from an alternative language. This is the name for The Holocaust in Thai. I cannot create the page because it says that it has been blacklisted. Please make it a redirect to The Holocaust. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

But why? Do people actually search for non-English script terms on the English Wikipedia? DP 17:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they do, for this.Hoops gza (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Google translate says it should be ความหายนะ and that ฮอโลคอสต์ is "Hollywood Holocaust". Can we get someone who knows Thai to clarify (because I don't trust Google). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Very good, T-13. You beat me to the answer. (Edit conflict)

Google translates that to Hollywood holocaust

• ฮอ could mean hall, horse or hop—or Hollywood
• Why not just โลคอสต์?

But the Thai Wikipedia does use that for the title: See th:ฮอโลคอสต์, so it does seem to be an issue with Google's translation.

You can find foreign language articles using the languages drop-down menu in the left margin of all Wikipedia articles. Couldn't a Thai speaking reader link here by clicking the inter-language link in the Thai Wikipedia? I'm not aware of any guideline regarding this, but imagine how many redirects we would have if all titles had foreign-language redirects for dozens of languages. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"ฮอโลคอสต์" is simply a transliteration of "Holocaust" (ฮอ = ho, โล = lo, คอส - cos/cot, ต์ = silent t)

"โลคอสต์" would say "low cost" Thrub (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason "ความหายนะ" is wrong is that's the translation of the ordinary noun "holocaust" and does not have the same connotations with Nazi Germany. Thrub (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But I think that this one warrants having the foreign languages, for some reason.Hoops gza (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at the documentation for Template:R from alternative language: "It is not a license to create redirects for arbitrary terms in any language; generally, foreign-language redirects are considered appropriate only when there is a strong connection between the language and the topic." See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages. "For some reason" isn't good enough for me, sorry. Can you give me a well-grounded rationale? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[ec with Wbm1058] This really shouldn't be created. In most cases, foreign language redirects are appropriate only when the term is related to that language. For example, 天皇 is a redirect to Emperor of Japan, because it's the original Japanese name for the concept, and people might search for the title. We routinely include foreign-language original names in our texts, so someone might see the text and search for it in hopes that it would be mentioned in the article. However, just as we don't mention third-party languages in articles, we generally don't have third-party redirects, so there's no need for Император Японии to be a redirect to the emperor article, because the Emperor of Japan is thoroughly unrelated to the Russian language. Likewise, the Holocaust is unrelated to Thai, so we shouldn't have a Thai-language redirect for this. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

When I pointed out on his Talk page that this activity was unconstructive and contrary to policy, his response was "Yes, I know. The Holocaust is not a standard subject." Which is not his only current problematic editing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Just want to point out that "ฮอโลคอสต์" is Hollywood Holocaust but "อโลคอสต์" (without the ฮ) is The Holocaust.--Auric talk 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Information page or essay?

An uninvolved closer is needed at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2#RfC: Is this an information page or is it an essay? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside comment: Whilst a gross oversimplification, it's a necessary Lie-to-children and should be a clear single-page with no headings at all; no need to call it an 'essay' or 'guide' or anything else. It's the single best piece of advice that can be given to new users, and avoids months of futile bureaucratic bullshit.

Per IAR, it should have no headings at all. Just a footnote saying something like "This is a simplified guide; for full details see blah blah blah...

80% of spammers won't actually read more than a couple of lines. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see someone with more experience close, Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi you've only made a handful of edits. A "necessary Lie-to-children" isn't a good rationale for removing the headers. -- GreenC 22:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've made over 100,000 edits and written 3 FAs. What happened to AGF? Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't close it. Just added my own view, is all. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's why I said, "Outside comment" see? Er. A comment, from outside. Not 'closing', nothing. Just sayin' - in my oh-so-humble opinion. "anyone can edit", kinda thing. Is 'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk • contribs) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I made one single edit to the page. Is that disruptive? Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You did this[25] with the comment "Per ANI" which looks like an attempt to force the issue the way you wanted. If you are such an experienced editor, why are you are participating in the RfC using a SPA account newly created today? That's typical sock puppet behavior. Have you ever !voted in the RfC under a different account? -- GreenC 23:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And now you're edit warring. I'm going to step away from this and let an administrator look into this. This needs admin intervention on a number of levels. -- GreenC 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it should have no headers whatsoever. Also, GreenC's bad-faith characterization of another editor, who may be far more experienced than GreenC or most admins, is way out of line. While I don't have a clean-start account, I sometimes do edit while logged off and experience similar disrespect from others.

This endless debate also deserves a mention over at WP:LAME although it isn't really an "edit war" per se.

I'd close it myself, but I've already made a comment or two on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Whoever the new red-linked user is, their comments are precisely correct—the page is the single best piece of advice that can be given to new users, and an argument over whether it accurately sums up thousands of words of policy is a worthy WP:LAME candidate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: AGF or not, I'm pretty sure a clean-starting 100k-edit/multipe-FA editor would have trouble nominating an article at AfD (and with the rationale of just not notable, no less), and with such a name; nor would they edit-war to maintain a non-consensus outcome to a still-open RfC. I'm pretty sure that, whoever they may be, they're trying to avoid scrutiny of some sort. ₆an⁶sh₆ 23:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck right off with your pathetic accusations.

"Is it information or an essay"? Who cares. It's useful.

It helps new users build the encyc.

Is all. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ansh666, what is wrong with AfD'ing something as not meeting GNG? Haven't you done the same? Do we need more reasons than 'not GNG'? Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Fuck off"? Who are you, what is your real account? Why are you hiding behind a fake account and telling people they are "children" and to "fuck off"? Now you are edit warring over something as simple as notification of an RfC. Why are you removing this RfC notification? -- GreenC

This is a "real account". It's a real person, with real opinions, and real ideas. I mentioned the applicable concept of Lie-to-children. I did say, "Fuck right off with your pathetic accusations" - and stand by it; if you are offended by such language I humbly suggest you may have chosen the wrong internet; I believe you can obtain plug-ins to block all viewings of naked ankles or images of Muhammed or profanity, if that's your thing. I hope we can just have a mature discussion on the best way to work together. Thx. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah so you need to stop harassing my talk page. -- GreenC 00:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, every time I bring up the question "Should this page be tagged as an information page, essay, something else, or not marked at all?" there are multiple replies along the lines of "the article is great" or "the article is bad". The quality and usefulness of the page is an interesting question, but why am I seeing answers to it instead of to the actual question I asked? Was I not clear? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• With seven new !votes since I requested a closer, we might want to keep it open for a while. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong To use language like that is inexcusable! Talk about Uncivility! I have met no one else insult someone else , Ever! Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That editor was blocked by CheckUser indefinitely for sockpuppetry, so just ignore it, no more disruption will be forthcoming. -- Atama頭 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting closure on indecisive Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) merge discussion

A discussion has been taking place as to whether the contents of Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) should be merged into Grand Theft Auto V. The discussion has remained open since January 25 with no absolute consensus yet reached. It is currently at 8 votes to merge and 6 votes to keep. As I have nominated the Grand Theft Auto V article as a Featured Article Candidate I would like closure on the discussion as soon as possible. CR4ZE (t) 13:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• CR4ZE, one option, if it is no consensus, is for you to just close it yourself as withdrawn. Can't be closed any faster than that. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawing a proposal only ends a discussion if the proposal hasn't earned any good-faith support. That's at least how the deletion process works, and I imagine it's the same with other proposals (such as merges and moves). That's so that the nominator's withdrawal doesn't suddenly invalidate all of the other arguments in favor of the proposal. -- Atama頭 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Closed — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparent circular reason for a block

Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan and the associated block log, am I missing something?

The account was apparently blocked for block evasion... but I only see one block. Which block was being evaded? A block on a different account? I can see no reference to any other account.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything I'm reading seems to suggest that Aalaan was blocked for sockpuppetry (cf. User:Luthador), not for block evasion. Where are you seeing that the block is for block evasion? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah ha! That's in the archive! I was looking at the non-archived stuff. Now I get it. Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I have to hop off the keyboard IRL - a few to do. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this was swiftly dealt with by a few enterprising administrators, at this moment every request has been answered. -- Atama頭 19:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Complaint re administrator Giant Snowman

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.

---

Above administrator shows at the article Seth Burkett apparently some overreach. I feel hounded by him. People actually should be nice to me if I substantially correct content of articles and expand them, I would think. I get the feeling, he thinks he own the article despite having not contributed any content. The trifling article is not actually worth the hassle. I feel, I am better off leaving things as they are, if meaningful modifications incur such shyte. I sort of had the idea, administrators would be more about being facilitators for the smooth running of operations than masters of the universe. The way that guy is handling it it is not worth my while here. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have done nothing at this article but remove OAlexander's POV (i.e. describing something as "renowned"), correcting spelling and grammar, and generally tidy up and improve to bring into line with MOS. Not that I feel the need to justify myself, but see the article talk page for an explanation of my edits. GiantSnowman 14:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note, user is engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING, matter has also been raised at WP:ANEW, see diff. Furthermore the editor is now edit warring, despite the matter being raised at a noticeboard. I suggest BOOMERANG applies here. GiantSnowman 14:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever Forumshopping means: I am a contributor of content and not a specialist in finer details of esoteric rules. I suggest it will be avoided to apply administrative trickery against me. The interpretation of WP:BLPPRIMARY was incorrect by GS. I have not misused primary sources ("Avoid misuse of primary sources"). Etc. GiantSnowman overreaches and editwars. Where it is handled, does not matter. I uphold that my edits were reasonable and meaningful. GiantSnowman has not contributed whatsoever contentwise to the article, and does not even deserve something like moral ownership. He is disruptive. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have increasing competency concerns about you now, for example the 'BLPPRIMARY' edit you mention was this one, where I removed a source which violates BLPPRIMARY. I never said you added the source - I know you didn't, because I did, many years ago when I knew no better. You seem to have the attitude that everything/everyone is against you, and you cannot take genuine constructive commentary. GiantSnowman 14:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) First, I need to disclose that GiantSnowman have typically not gotten along very well, and we have a history of typically being on the opposite sides of a debate. I believe he has a general discontent about me for this reason. Secondly, I need to say that despite our disagreements in the past, I have great respect for their knowledge of football (or what I call soccer) and the surrounding policies regarding articles involving players (WP:GNG, NFOOTY, WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIMARY, etc). That said, OAlexander seems to be the one exhibiting WP:OWNership behavior in this article, is indeed WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and WP:EDITWARRING. I'm actually thinking it is a less of a WP:CIR issue however than GiantSnowman seems to think, and more of a WP:COI issue in some way that we are not aware of yet. Just my thoughts on it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: - as a side-note, while we may disagree on certain things, that does not necessarily mean we don't/can't get along, and your comment that we don't, or that I have discontent about you, was news to me! :) GiantSnowman 14:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• When the player himself says "All of my best performances came when I was playing in a back four rather than as a wing back," then probably left defender ist not what he wants to play or can play best. Also on the Stamford side he was only listed as defender. He should imho therefore not unnecessarily classified as left defender thus.
• I don't see any harm of mentioning, that São Carlos is located in the interior of the state of São Paulo; it rather helps the reader, which is my opinion. Kind of like "Albany, NY," which is common.
• He was taken to the youth tournament in S.C. as substitute, which is noteworthy, and referenced. He did not play there.
• Links require updating:
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20120423024529/http://www.stamfordafc.net/squad-profiles/seth-burkett
  • http://lesrosbifs.org/seth-burkett-my-year-in-brazil/
• I don't see any harm, advising the reader in the intro, that Stamford is a seventh tier club in England. It is a service to the reader.
• If I call a tournament "renown," then I do this to emphasize, that it has some importance on the Brazilian football calendar, not as POV. I do this from a substantial knowledge of Braz-Soccer.

Am I unreasonable? Generally, the wholesale removals of content provided by GiantSnowman are beyond what I can understand. Please analyse that. Technical 13 had at least some reason in his compromise edit. OAlexander (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• To answer your concerns - "back four" refers to the four defenders - a fullback and a wingback are not the same. I have no real opinion either way on placing state next to city, though I don't really see what it adds. You do not mean to say that he was a substitute at that tournament, you mean to say that he was a "squad member." Dead links can be found at archive.org, I will have a go at replacing them this evening when I have more time. We do not normally, in football articles, list what tier they play in. This is due to the sheer number of articles that would require updating every year given the promotion/relegation that happens, and the risk of articles not being updated (as happens far too often - plus the fact that it adds nothing). Descriving a tournament as "renown" is a) gramatically incorrect and b) POV. Finally, this situation appears to boil down to lack of language skills, and you not really responding to my comments at your talk page or the article talk page. Really, it could/should have been avoided. Basically, this is a very minor content dispute that you have managed to blow out of all proportion. GiantSnowman 15:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

From the referenced article: "I was a substitute in all three matches.". "Back four" does not indicate he is a left defender; defender alone should be suitable enough and does not provide unnecessary, disputable detail. There seemed no point responding on the discussion pages, as wholesale content removal was the consequence anyway. Many article commence with "who plays as a defender for English Premier League club ..." or so. I a case like this one could say "lower tears of the English league system" to give the reader an indication. Those links above are the replacement links. With "renown" you are technically right - we will have to indicate that this is a notable tournament in a different way. You started the uncompromising removal process, and your style of discussion was never suited to lead to any amenable outcome. Your application of "reliable sources," as you wished to emphasise, was without broader analysis of the subject matter. The "reliable sources" were demonstrably incorrect. OAlexander (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the reliable sources noticeboard. Enclosing latest comment as well. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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

RFC Announcement (Biographies)

A RFC has been opened at WT:BLP regarding adding maintenance categories to mainspace articles based on missing data. Please feel free to review and comment on the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

African Union Methodist Protestant Church/A.U.M.P. Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union_Methodist_Protestant_Church and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.U.M.P._Church both refer to the same entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randymanme (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed with a redirect: African Union Methodist Protestant Church. Thanks for pointing it out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Site Ban Request

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

---

Resolved

 – Nyttend sums it up nicely.

This is a request for a one year ban for Smauritius (contributions). Smauritius came to wikipedia last year with an interest in writing about modeling [[26]]. They did try very hard but honesty issues such as socking to pass their pet article to a GA started a disturbing trend. Part of the issue other than immaturity is that his English skills are relatively poor to the point that it interfered with his ability to understand the edits that were not neutral or were not understandable.

• Examples include [is known as Anita, Websites also delicate refer to this name, so is Google & Youtube]
• [had saw the poll, Deepika was ugliest of all.. LOL, average looking yeah, what so great about her?? This not a fansite]
• [comment admits the most recent sockpuppetry but there again the English is not such we want in articles]

His full behavior problems include edit wars, disruption, sockpuppetry and personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Maybe when this user has grown up and learned better English skills this may be good WP:OFFER but until that time the ban will help us deal with the socking easier. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The guy's just been indefinitely blocked. Why do we need to worry about this now? Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

He was indefinitely blocked last month. We have literally months though of socking with behavioral and competence issues. I see your point but I also think that the site ban will help us deal with things more quiclkly. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• More socks [[27]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's thoroughly pointless; just report the socks and we'll block them. If you're to the point of "yet another", no admin's going to unblock you, and that's considered a ban. We never had a ban discussion for Willy on Wheels, as far as I can tell, but he's still banned. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I see your point. I never quite understood why some of the more profilic socks weren't banned but either way it is dealt with similarly I guess. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I just blocked and reverted yet another DP 10:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

*Timestamp to prevent archiving, index +7d: The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Just popping in to comment that Smauritius is female, not male. The only effect on any discussion this should have is on pronoun usage. --Geniac (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Geniac, the pronoun usage is correct [[28]]. The subject is a minor from Port Louis, Mauritius. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... odd. For a few months last year, the user page stated they were a 21-year-old female attending university, and some other stuff, but I'll stop right there to avoid outing and say oh well, they could have lied either way. --Geniac (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Several of the socks had varying bits of info too so who knows. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Odd now it is being suppressed, I do not know who did it but I plan on filing a complaint for innapropriate suppression as the information was only the name and nothing terribly revealing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for technical move

Will some administrator be so kind to rename Kosovo independence precedent to Kosovo precedent as per WP:COMMONNAME explained in this section of the talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) That appears to be disputed. — Scott • talk 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Another editor used that section to emphasize that they believe that "the actual problem with the article... is that it's a POV fork."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) ...which isn't resolved by moving the article and may result in a deletion. Thought that was what I read in there... I suggest addressing the fact that it should probably be discussed at AfD due to the lack of consensus and the "next step" in such discussions before you worry about moving the article. It should be stable before it is moved. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've been doing some editing on that page today, and I noticed this issue, so I looked into the matter more closely. The current opposition is from User:Bobrayner, who did a rather disruptive blank-redirect of the page in December 2013, despite that there has been a previous decision to keep the page. In other issues related to the region, he has acted like he has an axe to grind, a good example can be seen here: Talk:Kosovo. I think that this opposition is nothing else than an attempt to stall and cause annoyance, and it's quite safe to assume that the article can be moved. - Anonimski (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see any reason why you can't just open an WP:RM. Particularly since the there's no guarantee other talk page watchers share your view of Bobrayner's comments and so they could have easily considered the existance of the opposition as sufficient to require an RM so didn't see the need the comment further until and unless one was opened. Either consensus exists or it does not, establishing it does via an RM is unlikely to cause harm when there is doubt. I mean the original suggestion was back in December and even this request is now over 2 days old so it doesn't seem time is an issue. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I did what you suggested. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI/Check User assistance

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.

---

We've got an a pretty persistent/prolific sockpuppet, who who currently has 2 more suspected socks. I hate to be impatient, but its been in queue for 3 days now, and today he's going around causing more trouble, creating really bad articles that are either getting speedy deleted or nominated to be deleted at AFD. I believe there are several admin, myself included, who are pretty close to just blocking him per WP:DUCK, but we've gone this far, I kind of just wanted to see it through.

If anyone could help, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear: is there anything non-CUs can do? Your header suggests no, but "I believe that..." makes it sound like yes. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone looked at it, so it's now taken care of. Also, your speedy delete was very helpful. The only thing that would help now, I suppose, is if there is a better way to combat such a prolific sock-puppeteer. Or do we just keep on doing SPI and blocking them? Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

See Whack-A-Mole. Otherwise, not so much. Checkusers can apply IP-level blocks in some cases if possible, but we basically rely on the disruptive user getting bored. That's about it. --Jayron32 02:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My speedy delete: which one? I agree with Jayron; there's not much to do. I suppose you could petition the WMF staff, since they have the ability to stop all sockpuppets entirely, and although it's not possible for ordinary admins anymore, you could ask stewards to lock out edits by everyone. Barring those options, it's basically WP:DENY unless he gets to the point that a longterm abuse investigation is needed. Since you say the guy hits the most random subjects, an abuse filter wouldn't help. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Discretionary sanctions review. Comments welcome on Draft v3

The Arbitration Committee has recently been conducting a review of the discretionary sanctions system. You may wish to comment on the newest (third) draft update to the system, which has just been posted to the review page. Comments are welcome on the review talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 00:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

RPP backlog

Can some admins take care of the backlog at WP:RPP? The list itself isn't terribly long, but some pages have been on it for over 24 hours, and obviously vandalism continues while we all wait. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleared for now. AlexiusHoratius 15:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

With deep regret.

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 your concerns, but I'm alive and well. It's just a poor attempt at trolling by some kid with too much time on his or her hands. Lupo 22:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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

User:GS221

I would like to notify all administrators of the actions of User:GS221, whose edits to the following articles, in my opinion, amount to vandalism:

• Kira Jääskeläinen
• Jyrki Niskanen

This person appears to be a new user, or then is sock-puppeting. The latter might be closer to the truth, since he seems to know his way around.

Yours sincerely, Apanuggpak (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Apanuggpak, I just want to remind you that GS221 Reverted his edits to that page. Also, just a note, don't base if someone is a sockpuppet off of their understanding of how to use wikipedia. With the best of luck, Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not sockpuppeting: evidently I am Fi:User:GS in Finnish wikipedia, but adopted here GS221 since User:GS is preoccupied in English wikipedia. My edits to the mentioned articles are good-faith, in both cases condensing and pruning of biographical articles from unnecessary detail, to a more encyclopedic form; and that was stated (though concisely) in the edit summaries. Specifically, the single-film director Kira J has herself requested removing irrelevant personal detail, picked up from a radio interview [e.g. as about a relative's death] from the corresponding Finnish article (on the article talk-page). I've made similar edits to the Finnish articles. GS221 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not vandalism, for sure, and not unhelpful, either. The huge section of rôles played by Niskanen is unneeded and unhelpful, and we don't need a long list of conductors or "other music pieces". Meanwhile, the Jääskeläinen article has rather much detail on the film, in particular; the stuff about her doing her studies in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug seems relevant and properly sourced, but either GS removed it by accident, or we simply disagree about what's essential. Please don't make accusations of vandalism so readily. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal or Medical advice

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Legal or Medical advice that may be of interest.

It concerns requests for legal or medical advice posted to one of the reference desks.

I am posting this here because there have been several ANI threads concerning editing others' comments on the reference desks. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Football records in Spain

Please intervene in Football records in Spain, There is one peron Walter Görlitz who usurp the right to decide to removing lots of issue. He removed 40000 words of statts and even reverting this he make it again and again. His arguments are he thinks most of them are trivial, (althought never explains what does it mean) and there is no ref. The problem of the second one is, there is no ref. because that is stats of metches ang every week they are new and needs to be updated. Lots of people work on updating, but Walter from last weekend decide to be alone judge who destroy most of page. Edamian (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion was made on the article's talk page that unreferenced material should be removed. It's been six months and no references were added. Material was removed. Not entirely sure what is so difficult to understand about that. I have restored a section where a ref that meets WP:V but not WP:RS was supplied, but the rest is unreferenced.

In the football project discussion on the subject, I also mentioned that there's trivial material and Edamian had latched onto that idea and was arguing that the material is not trivial despite other national record articles not including similar statistics although that's a separate discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot compare Footbsll records in spain to other record articles. It couldn't be an argument because you dont explain why one is better or worse than other one. You cannot explain logically your point of view. Moreover, you point out that articles, althougt there are the same problem like in all pages with statt - there are also no references.

Walter start his removing activity explaining that hat trick are trivial and removed that stat, after undid his removing then he decide to remove everything what unreverted is. When he noticed that hat tricks stat is rev now, he leaves it out and remove the rest. It shows only his ambitional brain game.

You ought not to decide alone to remove all statistics. Better idea would be to signalize no reference, no citation et cetera.

Walter ruins this page and even doesnt look at consequences. After what did he make, after his activity there remain a big mess.

As I said, the problem of this issue is that Walter usurps for himself to big jurisdiction. He couldnt decide to remove 40000 words, especially that these word were big work of lots of people, and only Walter wants to remove it.Edamian (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can compare records in Spain to other record articles. I have as have others. The point is that the material is not sourced and that's the key. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're both pretty close (if not already) at WP:3RR and would advise you to both stop. I agree with the principal of removing any unsourced material, but you should discuss this on the talkpage and notify the Football Project for more input. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is already ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Football records in Spain, this might be a case for WP:DR. GiantSnowman 20:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am at 3 while Edamian is at 4 assuming that the anon restore was not Edamian.

The discussion at the Footy project was just Edamian and me the last I checked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You might want to seek a third opinion then. -- Atama頭 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Beware: possibly definitely fake e-mail supposedly from Newyorkbrad

I just got an e-mail from Newyorkbrad's address (yes, it is his address) that I don't like the look of. There are several curious things about it. It reads:

Hello,

Attached is the important business Docs file [View Docs Here] with secure e-mail.

Thank you!

I can see where the "View Docs Here" link goes to, but I don't like to reproduce it here lest I trick somebody into absentmindedly clicking on malware. There's a warning at the top of the message: "Be careful with this message. It contains content that's typically used to steal personal information." Followed by a choice of links: "Ignore", "I trust this message" and "Learn more". (I went to click on "Learn more", then realized that if the message was altogether a trap, that would be a bad idea.)

What I don't like, apart from the warning and the alarm-bell "docs" is the style, of course. I've corresponded with Brad, and he doesn't talk like that. And even more worrying, it was sent to "undisclosed recipients" and Bcc'd to me. And perhaps to you, dear reader? Don't click on the links! I think somebody may have hacked Brad's address and his address book. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

Those warnings are probably a security feature of your mail client (or webmail provider, if you were using a browser at the time), triggered by the detection of a deceptive link or header, or possibly the message content; the “Learn more“ link probably leads to a FAQ or help page about phishing & the like. As for the bcc, that’s a common method of mass-mailing without revealing all the recipients to each other, so not inherently suspicious—although IIANM the courteous thing to do when using the technique is to make oneself (or the organization one represents, if any) a ‘disclosed recipient’.—Odysseus1479 00:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. There is a good possibility that all the addresses to which these messages were sent have been “harvested“ for a black-market list somewhere, so I’d advise everyone concerned to make sure their junk-filters are in order. 01:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Some malware is known to read your address book and then send spam to everyone in it using your name. Sometimes the emails are attempts to infect more computers, but more often they are the usual spam advertising the usual spammy products and services. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• We are learning who is part of the in-crowd at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Access, and now here. Also see NYB's comment (via a meatpuppet!) at the bottom of his talk. Oh, the pain. Good thinking on the links: don't click! Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think this was something worse than spam. Anyway, I'll relay Brad's message below. (John, I'd have seen that ages ago, if it hadn't had the nonsense section title "access", which kept turning up on my watchlist and sounded far too boring to click on.) Bishonen | talk 11:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

This is Newyorkbrad. My thanks to everyone who alerted me to the problem with my Gmail account and took precautionary action, and my apologies to anyone inconvenienced.

I had a strong password on the Gmail account, and haven't used it from any insecure places, so I don't know how some spambot may have gained access to it. I've changed the password. It was, and still is, a different password from the ones I use on my Wikipedia account and my other Wikimedia-related and non-wiki accounts, but I am changing those as well.

I need to be offline for several hours this morning for RL work appointments, and will follow up about regaining my wiki access after that.

Regards to all. -Newyorkbrad

It is possible that the email was sent from a different account, but with a Newyorkbrad email address "display name" or "reply to". Then, on most email client displays it would (only) look like it came from your email. To see where it really came from you have to use a view that shows the "code". ( A simpler (not as foolproof) way would be to look at your gmail account and see if "you" sent anything that you didn't send.) If possible you might have someone who received one of these look into that code and see where it really came from. If it didn't come from your email address, you might even find out who the real culprit is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Forged mail headers would have been my guess except that the sender appears to have access to his address book. Newyorkbrad, what does https://security.google.com/ say about recent account activity? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not forged headers, FWIW. If you look at the source it's pinged around by an internal Google IP address, and passes all the SPF/DKIM checks for Gmail. So it was sent with Gmail, almost certainly from the web client. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm back. My apologies to everyone who were inconvenienced by this situation and my thanks to those who brought it to my attention.

Feezo, please feel free to contact me offline if you have specific suggestions for me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Brad (your talkpage is semi'd), if you think you might have been targeted or if you use gmail for anything sensitive (including using it as the "password reset" address for other accounts you might have), and if you use a smartphone, please consider enabling Google Authenticator on your gmail account. You can do that through gmail's account settings screen. It is a smartphone app for two-factor authentication: basically it displays a 6-digit number that changes once a minute or so, and you enter the number (along with your password) when you login to gmail. That means someone trying to hijack your account needs to get your phone or its contents, and not just your password. It's not ideal but it's a big improvement on relying solely on a password. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Added: Brad, unless you know that your gmail password had a chance to leak somehow, you also have to consider that your computer might be pwned, in which case merely changing passwords won't help. WP:RDC is a decent place to ask for advice regarding dealing with this possibility, if you need it. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Heh, I forgot all about that email message until I noticed the subsection here. I received one myself, and the link apparently leads to some sort of phishing scam (or so my security settings warned). I responded by asking if he'd sent it to the wrong address. Apparently I'm not the only one who got that email, but now that things seem like they're under control, all is well. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 05:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• One more suggestion: maybe ask Google Security if they can figure out the originating IP of the outgoing bogus messages. If it's one of your own addresses (checkuser yourself to see what addresses you were on around that time if necessary), that suggests you have a local exploit (probably a computer virus) instead of just a cracked password being used remotely. In that case you have to get rid of it somehow. I tend to advise a scorched earth approach (buy a new hard drive, remove old drive, install OS and all software on new drive from scratch, and restore user files from backup or carefully migrate from old drive) instead of relying on unreliable anti-virus tools, but I'm a bit hardcore about this stuff. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD question

The Republic of Crimea AfD was snow closed this morning as a "keep". Fourteen hours later a second AfD was started.

The second AfD was obviously started in good faith, but it seems to me that a new AfD should not be running so soon after a snow close. Is it in order to close it, and what rationale should be given? Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a moot point, as it has now been closed, but I would always cite WP:DISRUPTIVE and close it with that. I believe there's a guideline of not nominating the same article in less than a 3 month timespan, although I could be wrong. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The policy states: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." What a "reasonable amount of time" would be is subjective, but it should be longer than 14 hours. Three months sounds fairly reasonable, though some people may consider that too short a period. Consider a situation where an article is taken to AfD 4 times a year. -- Atama頭 20:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would suggest a rule of thumb of "No-consensus: 2*length of previous nom. Marginal Keep: max 4* length of previous nom or 2 months. Snow Keep: max of 6 * length of nom or 4 months." as the soonest I'd entertain a new nomination. Obviously IAR if there is a novel argument for the deletion, but in cases of "breaking" topics I'm inclined to suggest a moratorium on deletion/merge/etc discussions without a initial consensus that we should start the process again on the article's talk page. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Hasteur#HasteurBot being naughty?

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

---

{{Resolved|Score one for the fun-sucking OP. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)}}

I'm here to report a bot operating out of its defined functions per WP:BOTISSUE of which I have attempted to discuss and convince the bot owner to have the bot stop preforming this task on User talk:Hasteur#HasteurBot being naughty? I've indicated in that discussion that I would be reporting it here, and think that if Hasteur continues to refuse to have the bot stop preforming that task, the bot should be blocked until it can be approved for the task. I will also notify Hellknowz on their talk page as I think they might have something to offer here. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Commented there [29]. I don't think these categories should be moved away from their warnings. –xeno^talk 18:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Few points that our good "tattler buerecrat" failed to mention.

1. The functionality is core to PyWikibot page saving which does a great many cleanup routines.
2. Centralizing the notice categories into one location makes it easier for future editors to determine if escalation steps need to be taken with respect to the editor (or IP) in question with respect to the escalating warning system. T13's argument that the categories should be silently archived off when the talk page message gets archived off completely destroys the purpose of the escalating warning system.
3. Administrator's noticeboard is completely the wrong location to escalate to from the user talk page as the next appropriate place would be The Bot Operator's noticeboard.
4. All the objections are coming as "I don't think" and "I feel" objections not "Policy states:". If we were to only do things that were supported by feelings there would never be any featured articles, DYKs, or any betterment of the encyclopedia.
5. The amount of "hits" that the bot's actions makes with respect to the overall pool of actions is so low that it falls well under the threshold of caring. I suspect that this is a deliberate attack on me due to opposing several initiatives for policy based reasons that the Original poster decided to look through my contributions to take it out on me. Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone still use these categories for anything? If so, I agree with Xeno that they ought to stay inside the warning message rather than be moved elsewhere, but that sounds like more of an issue with the PyWikibot cleanup routines than anything Hasteur's specifically doing. Hastuer, I assume you're just calling the PyWikibot routines and not doing anything explicitly with the categories; is that correct? 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

For our purposes as bureaucrats, {{Uw-username}} & {{Uw-coi-username}} both bring categories with smart functionality that suppresses the category following a rename. I wonder if these categories would be moved out of their parserFunctions with the pywikipedia cosmetic changes - this would be unquestionably undesired behaviour. –xeno^talk 20:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I would hope that the PWB code would be smart enough not to pull cats out of "if" clauses (or html comments, or...) but I haven't looked at the code. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "offending" lines are copied directly from the template PyWikibot instructions for "proper editing" of a page. https://github.com/hasteur/g13bot_tools/blob/master/g13_nom_bot.py#L354-L369. The contest for the snippet is

You're wanting to add a message at the bottom of the page.

You have the authorization to reorganize some of the page so that things that normally show up at the end of the page (Like Categories, ex-interwiki links, and foreign-wiki FA stars) still show up at the bottom of the page where they should.

You collect all the categories that are on the page to note what they are

You remove the categories from the page

You note what interwiki links there are

You remove the interwiki links

You add the new text you wanted to add

You Re-add the categories you removed

You Re-add the interwikis you removed

Other portions.

Now if we don't do the interwiki and category re-location we run into the risk of the last section of the page being below the category invocations, which as I understand it is not a good idea. But you want to know the funniest part. Technical 13 could has avoided every last bit of this drama by instead of lobbing pejorative accusactions and failing to assume good faith, following back where the code is and see that it is in a github repository where they could branch and submitted a proposed change. Oh wait, they already knew where the repository was because they had submitted a proposed change before. Seriously, failures of AGF like this are why we're hemoraging good editors at an astonishing rate. Hasteur (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

From where did you get the idea that categories on talk pages should be at the bottom of the page? Since messages are added to the bottom of the page, categories would need to be constantly moved all the time. Ditto interwikis, etc. –xeno^talk 20:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Those "cleanup" routines shouldn't be run on user talk pages... Talk pages in general have an entirely different set of guidelines, rules, policies, and what not than article space does. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you on that. Hasteur, is there any particular feature of the PWB cleanup you're relying on in order to post the G13 notices? Would there be any harm in not calling the cleanup routines when the bot leaves the notifications? 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So I understand, it's the community's contention that I should just go ahead and rip out that code and send back poorly structured pages because of the 0.01% chance that a warning category will become detached from the associated template? Hasteur (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You shouldn't be "restructuring" someone else's talk page anyway - what if they happened to put their own categories at the top of their talk page? Then you're moving them without consent. That code isn't useful on talk pages. –xeno^talk 20:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are doing the right thing, and it makes no sense to make a change. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What's to "rip out"? If I understand the code correctly, all you'd have to do is set "reorderEnabled" to "False", no? 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that the of all "Editors" filtered down to the set of "Editors who have a warning template on their talk page that has a category" filtered down to the set of "Editors who have a warning template on their page who submitted a AFC draft" filtered down to the set of "Editors who have a warning template on their page who submitted a AFC draft that let it go stale" filtered down to the set of "Editors who have a warning template on their page who submitted a AFC draft that let it go stale and now the bot is handling a deletion 30 days after it was notified on". Such a small subset of a subset of a ... that it doesn't make sense to be having this level of drama over. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Commenting here as I was pinged. The bot approval in question does not include any talk page refactoring in its scope. Unless such functions are explicitly mentioned in BRFA, approval does not apply to them. Even accepted general fixes have to be mentioned. I judged the final bot's performance based on edits since its extended trial approval (as the botop mentioned issues with first) [30]-[31]. I checked through a number of these and I admit I missed the ones with category removals (they appear to be far in between). I'm afraid I didn't re-check (or recall this from) the first (pre-extended trial) batch of edits. As far as BRFA/BOTPOL goes, these are not approved and it was not my intention to approve such. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I give up. Technical 13, I salute you in your attempts to suck the attention, interest, and passion out of wikipedia. Xeno, I too hope that you have fun in the encyclopedia where all passionate editors are driven away by stupid "I feels". Is the change that will supress the logic and I'll pull those changes into the labs instance once I get home from work today. Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure from whence this comes, but these changes should not have been done in the first place, and stopping them from happening does not affect the proper, good operation of your bot at all. I hope that tomorrow brings a less stressful day for you, and thank you for your contributions. –xeno^talk 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure why Hasteur has reopened (because unclosed can't really be a word) this discussion and deleted the comments of others and added incivil personal attacks in there place. I will say that I apologize that you feel that editing Wikipedia is less enjoyable because of me, Hasteur, and I hope that someday in the near future, you are willing to discuss it in a calm manner without throwing insults around. Meh. I hope the rest of your day is a pleasurable one, and I hope you know that I really do appreciate all that you have done towards improving Wikipedia. Good day sir... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Factual World

Has anyone tried to contact the Factual World website that they appear to be taking content almost blatantly from Wikipedia without an attribution notice? They may be running afoul of the CC-BY-SA guidelines. What sort of actions are normally taken? (BTW, for context I had earlier this month emailed LCA about these sites and they could only give me a "general opinion".) TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process 88.104.22.149 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Large influx of editors from "Immersive Education"

There seems to have been a large amount of editors coming onto Wikipedia, and vandalizing articles, whose names start with "Immersiveed" or a variant. Some example are ImmersiveEducationBrendan and ImmersiveEdKevinP. 123chess456 (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Go to Special:Listusers and tell it to return usernames beginning with "Immersive", and you'll be given 26 usernames: Immersive, Immersive360, ImmersiveCom, ImmersiveECC, ImmersiveED Nejat, ImmersiveEdKaryn, ImmersiveEducationKaren, ImmersiveIEDMatt, ImmersiveReality, ImmersiveState, Immersiveadrian, Immersivebrian, Immersivecaitlin, Immersivechris, Immersivedan, Immersivedev, ImmersiveedDean, ImmersiveedKevinP, Immersiveedal, Immersiveedivan, Immersiveeducationbrendan, Immersivejenarrow, Immersivekevin, Immersiveme, Immersivemurray, Immersivepreview. Immersiveeducationbrendan and ImmersiveedKevinP are indeed new, but all of the others are at least nine months old, and one of them (the blocked Immersive360) was registered in 2007. Let's just check Brendan and Kevin without worrying about the rest. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like well-meaning, if a bit uninformed, editing; not vandalism. Don't think there's anything to be done here, though WP:Education noticeboard/Incidents might like to hear about it. ₆an⁶sh₆ 05:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

rule interpretation please

TL;DR: Are edits like these acceptable?

User:Pigsonthewing and I have a disagreement and I would like some input. It’s quite a complex issue and close to WP:OUTING, so I thought I’d start here (some aspects perhaps should be taken to other noticeboards such as WP:RS/N once OUTING issues are resolved).

ORCID is an identifier for researchers, based on International Standard Name Identifier, an identifier for authors and other creators. Using Template:Authority control en.wikipedia identifies >200,000 people (both the subjects of articles and editors themselves) as having an ORCID, an ISNI and/or other similar identifiers. Template:Authority control on en.wiki and Vorlage:Normdaten on de.wiki are key identifiers for authors and other creators in WikiData (See here for others).

User:Pigsonthewing apparently based the linking of my user page to ORCID entirely on the link from ORCID to wikipedia and a linkedin profile. These ORCID pages are entirely user-generated, they’re WP:SELFPUBLISH, with no apparent attempt to establish that people are who they claim they are. LinkedIn pages are also entirely user-generated with no real identity checks. User:Pigsonthewing reports having investigated the links in ways that sound like original research to me. I have not investigated the half-dozen or so apparently similar edits I see in his contribution log. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate for editors to add these kinds of identifiers to other editors user pages?
• Are they required to rely on reliable sources as per WP:BLP when doing that?
• Is WP:Original research and/or it’s close relation "opposition research" permitted in determining these links?

I believe this falls in under WP:OUTING. They've all apparently given their full name themselves, but linking to external sites based on a name (and possible other bits of info) looks like OR to me. I don't think the links should be added, simply because it should be left to the users themselves to decide if they want to make a connection between their life on Wikipedia and their life outside. Bjelleklang - talk 09:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks completely unacceptable to me. Apart from the potential outing issue, we don't edit other people's userpages at all, except to remove seriously inappropriate material; I've never heard of a "courtesy addition" of stuff to a person's userpage, as POW's edit summary says. In this community culture, it has long been reckoned discourteous to edit others' userpages other than for really good reasons. It's not supposed to be done in the service of busybodying. I'm sure it's well-meant (well, reading POW's confrontational reply to Stuart's objection makes me a little less sure), and the edit summary does go on "revert if not wanted". But just think how much better it would be if the user added it if it was wanted. How do you know the user will even be around to revert it, Andy? Bishonen | talk 10:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

• I love POW's reply on his talk—self-confidence is such an admirable trait. Should an editor post links to external sites that provide personal information on a user which that user has not revealed on Wikipedia? Normally, no, because that's WP:OUTING. However, it's ok if you are full of confidence and use a nice edit summary (I suggest "if you are unhappy that I have OUTed you, feel free to revert this and ask for oversight before anyone sees it"). Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody should be linking to personal off-wiki information about other people on their own user pages! Thrub (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree completely with Thrub. What's the point of doing anyone this "favor", without his or her prior input? And as Bish points out, why is this user taking it upon himself to edit other people's user pages at all? The "revert if not wanted" disclaimer is ludicrous as well. Would it be acceptable to post someone's home address and phone number on their own Facebook wall, and then add, "You're free to take this down if you don't want it here"? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with Thrub, Bishonen, et al. Note that this "courtesy" was added to nine user pages—not just the ones Stuart mentioned and those editors have not edited on Wikipedia in days and one case months. They should all be reverted. Voceditenore (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not revert the addition of the ORCID template to my user page. The ORCID link does not reveal any information that is not already public: it connects one public profile containing my real name to another. The template is a useful thing to have there- in fact I was under the mistaken impression that I'd already added it myself. If I didn't want the template, I would have reverted the edit.

I was under the impression that WP:Original research was a policy applying to article content. If it applies to user pages as well, then perhaps the policy needs to be clarified and new users warned. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've reverted all the others except for MartinPoulter - only the 'owner' of a user page should be adding their own personal info and links, whether it's already public knowledge or not. Thrub (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• All of these links definitely violate the WP:OUTING policy if they are applied by another user. They should all be reverted and oversighted. If the users want the links on their user page, then they can add them back themselves. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • They're all reverted and oversighted now, except Martin Poulter's in accordance with his comments above. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I wasnt sure if it was OS material but my mail and this Oversighting confirms the same. The matter looks closed now, and I'll just leave this reminder to User:Pigsonthewing again to never WP:OUT anyone. Also, since it looks like the general consensus, please don't edit others' User pages without permission.

Regards,

Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 19:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese characters and WP:NOCONSENSUS

Can an impartial administrator please take a look at the move discussion at Chinese characters and determine if WP:NOCONSENSUS applies to whether the article should be moved back to Chinese character or not? Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Will check, give me half an hour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Checked, found nothing overturnable in the way the debate was closed. I have advised Curly Turkey of the possibility of WP:Move review, but would recommend against it, to avoid the appearance of "beating a dead horse". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite Blocks

An editor who has been indefinitely blocked removes any mention of his block using anon IPs, (after hurling abuse that is). Are they allowed to do that and if a user has been indef blocked, isn't there a notice that is supposed to stay on their user and user talk page and should not be removed? 137.191.232.115 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to edit war with them to keep the indef block notice. Anyone editing their talk page will see that they are blocked anyway. –xeno^talk 13:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but an editor who is indefinitely blocked and removing a template for an active sanction (which technically should stay according to our guideline) and is doing so with personal attacks included should have their user talk page access revoked. Who is the editor doing this? -- Atama頭 19:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. That guideline has been inappropriately made dependent on an essay here because of this. I'm reverting that change because a guideline shouldn't be dependent on an essay. It is arguable whether a block should be considered a "sanction", and there is a long history of allowing users to remove their block notifications. –xeno^talk 19:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This, at least, is the consensus I remember. There have, over the years, been pushes to force users to keep block notices on their page. The most recent RFC on it doesn't seem to have been closed: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 106#RFC on WP:BLANKING and I don't think the guideline/long-standing practice should be changed via a link to an essay with ~2 authors being inserted. –xeno^talk 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In the abstract, I would tend to assume that a block is a form of sanction. I would recommend linking sanction is some manner to a clear definition, ideally one that makes it clear that a block is not considered a sanction. DonIago (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree. But not to an essay written by only two principal authors (both non-administrators). –xeno^talk 20:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree. :) DonIago (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Policies/guidelines should not be dependent on essays" - Which, ahem, policy or guideline says this? Or where was it decided? As for block notices active block notices should not be allowed to be removed, period, IMHO; expired ones can absolutely go bye-bye. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#­Content: "avoid overlinking. Links to policies, guidelines, essays, and articles should be used only when clarification or context is needed. Links to other advice pages may inadvertently or intentionally defer authority to them. Make it clear when links defer, and when they do not." –xeno^talk 02:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've been looking into this further and it appears the words "any other notice regarding an active sanction" (unlinked at the time) were inserted by user:Monty845 [32] based on a somewhat dubious close of this muddy RFC by User:Sandstein: Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 10#May sanctions that are actively in effect be removed from a user talk page . I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like a strong consensus to change the long-standing status quo regarding removing block notices. Most of the users in that 2012 RFC were talking about different things from one another! For years, consensus has existed that block notices should not be "scarlet letters" kept in place by force to humiliate the blocked user - if a user wants to blank them and leave the project (or sit out their block, etc.). No, I think a much more clear, well-structured, -trafficked, and -advertised discussion should be held (and closed by a more neutral party) if we are going to ask administrators to enforce keeping scarlet letters on user talk pages via the user page guideline. –xeno^talk 03:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  Accordingly, I've undone that change. A new RFC should be held with wider participation, taking into account the problrms with the 2013 RFC from the village pump, and then actually closed this time. –xeno^talk 03:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • That's a load of bull, Xeno: regardless of your feelings about how justified Monty845's insertion of the text was, that was almost 2 years ago, and the time to challenge Monty845's addition was then. Now, after almost 2 years, you can't just remove that text without obtaining explicit consensus to do so. I will revert you momentarily. Nsk92 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • A mistaken edit is a mistaken edit no matter how long ago it was made. Could you point me to a strong consensus that shows wide community acceptance for the belief that users must be forced to keep scarlet letters on their talk pages if they wish to depart from the project? Yes, those words have stood for a while, but they are ambiguous, based on a dubious read of a lightly-trafficked and muddied RFC closed by a user who is deeply involved in enforcement, and the status quo stood for much longer. –xeno^talk 03:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Your opinion about the edit being "mistaken" and about the merits of an RFC as being dubious is a personal and subjective one. Who exactly are you to say that? Does being a bureaucrat make you untouchable and your opinion inviolate? The fact is that the phrase in question stood unchallenged for more than 1.5 years. That fact alone makes it a part of established consensus now. If you'd reverted Monty845's addition within a few days or at least a few weeks of the time it was made, you would have been perfectly within your rights to do that. But now, for a removal that is not uncontroversial, a new explicit consensus for doing so needs to be established first. Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I've reviewed many of the recent discussions today on the subject and disagree that there was a strong community consensus 1.5 years ago to change the 10-year status quo based on that muddied RFC closed by Sandstein. See most recently Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 12#WP:BLANKING, again and the village pump RFC linked above. I'm off for the evening, but tomorrow I will craft a very narrow RFC on the subject that should hopefully generate a stronger read of current feelings on this matter. –xeno^talk 04:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
          • A new RfC will be a perfectly fine way to go. My point is that even if you feel that that there was not a strong community consensus 1.5 years ago to make the addition that Monty845 made, the basic tenet of WP:EDITCONSENSUS still applies in this case: Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Maybe Monty845 misapplied the results of the RfC you mention or maybe he was just being WP:BOLD, who is to say. The mere fact that his edit stood unchallenged for over 1.5 years makes it a part of established consensus now, and, given the apparently controversial nature of the topic, the edit cannot be simply reversed without establishing new consensus first. Nsk92 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Not unchallenged. I'll try to put something together tomorrow or over the weekend. –xeno^talk 04:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

information pages?

Related question: everyone seems to agree that policies should not be dependent on essays. Should information pages also not be dependent on essays? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Which information page did you have in mind? (Keeping in mind that {{information page}} explicitly defers back to a guideline or policy.) –xeno^talk 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything cites two guidelines Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), one policy (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), and one essay (Wikipedia:Independent sources). An information page normally has a notice saying

"This is an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one."

so it seems odd that it references an essay. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

42--Mark Miller (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I showed on the talk page that everything in WP:42 is drawn directly from WP:N and WP:V. So It doesn't actually need to reference an essay. I'll go ahead and make the appropriate change now. Reyk _YO! 03:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Indian general election: spam and POV warring

There are national elections in India this year and we're starting to see a lot of problems regarding POV edits to both BLPs and articles about the political parties. The issue has been raised at WT:INB but, frankly, the more eyes on this, the better. One particularly obvious trait has been attempts by new contributors to create articles about non-notable candidates for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), often including the usual copyright violations of both text and images and almost invariably very badly written. Several of these have recently been deleted via AfD and doubtless more will have to head that way as the AAP continue their piecemeal release of candidate lists. Category:Aam Aadmi Party politicians exists and I rather suspect that this is an organised effort to harness Wikipedia as part of the campaign, although it may be plain naivety. So, yes, eyes please. Ta muchly. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Insisting to include large direct quotes

This is an incident. Please see WP:ANI, same section name. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Crimea (country) Speedy Close?

Seeing the last AfD ended just 4 days ago and that an RfC started before the AfD is going on at the same time is there a way to speedy close this AfD? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Three AfDs in less than a week is against policy. I have closed the discussion as a speedy keep, just as the last one was closed, and directed people to the RfC if they want to weigh in on the fate of the article. This is a no-brainer, both from a policy standpoint and a common sense standpoint. -- Atama頭 18:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, could you add links to the previous AfDs? I can find only one of them (under a different title, where confusingly there is now yet another forked-off article). It's all very confusing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed this is all very confusing. Having three different articles about Crimea with overlapping information is a headache. → Call me Hahc21 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I added them to the top of the recently-closed AfD. The RfC is the place to hash all of this out. I agree that all of this can get confusing and you're not alone in the headache. I'm wondering if A10 could be used for any other forks that pop up (knock on wood that it doesn't happen). -- Atama頭 19:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My goal in this, by the way, has been to reduce the confusion by centralizing the discussion in two places. What if the AfD closed as delete before the RfC finished? What if the AfD closed as "merge" as many people suggested, but the consensus at the RfC leaning toward not merging? -- Atama頭 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be a case of IAR and undo any result of the AFD (if this was the case) in favor of the RFC to resolve the issue of how to handle this article in light of many other details. That's one reason to remember that we are not a bureaucracy, we don't have to hold ourselves to process if it harms proper discussion towards article improvement. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal needing input

User:AnomieBOT III will currently convert attempted interwiki redirects into soft redirects. It has been proposed that the bot also apply {{prod}} to such redirects in article space, as WP:Soft redirect discourages these. Please comment at WP:VPR#Proposal to automatically ProD redirects to other language versions of wikipedia, instead of turhing them into soft redirects. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

RFP backlog

Could someone please deal with the increasing WP:RFP backlog. Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit notice

Could someone please create this page containing this template {{British-English-editnotice}}? Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted as an edit request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Verbalisation. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Azerbaijan in 1918 in the Template:Country data Azerbaijan

Wrong venue. This is a content issue that has already been raised at Template talk:Country data Azerbaijan. Once you have consensus to change the template data, please use {{Edit protected}} on that talk page to have a template editor perform the edit. De728631 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• thumb|130px|Flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic made by Mammad Amin Rasulzade
• thumbnail|First meeting of the parlament of Azerbaijan Democractic Republic. Observe the crescent on the middle field of the flag
• thumbnail|Delegation from Azerbaijan Democtatic Republic in Paris in 1919. See the photo of the flag behind
• thumbnail|See the flag with the small crescent on the red field behind soldiers of ADR

Dear administrators. In Template:Country data Azerbaijan the flag File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg was used to show the flag of Azerbaijan in 1918. But this flag with large crescent crossing all three fields is wrong. The original flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (from 9 November 1918 till 28 April 1920) was with the crescent on the red field. See the flag made by the chairman of the National Council of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic Mammad Amin Rasulzade in the Museum of the History of Azerbaijan.

Also you can see the photo of the flag on the photo of the first meeting of the Azerbaijani parlament on the 7th December 1918 - the crescent is small and on the middle field.

In the photo of Delegation from Azerbaijan Democtatic Republic in Hôtel Claridge [Avenue des Champs-Élysées] during Paris Peace Conference (1919) you can see the picture of flag behind the members of delegation.

Also here is an article about Flag of Azerbaijan (Whitney Smith. Flag Lore Of All Nations. — Millbrook Press, 2001. — С. 13. — 112 с. — ISBN 9780761317531):

AZERBAIJAN (ah-zer-bie-JAHN): Ali Bay Huseynzada, the leading nationalist of Azerbaijan, created its modern national flag. The colors of that tricolor stood for the Turkic people (blue), their lslamic faith (green), and the commitment to modernization. In the center of the flag was the traditional Muslim star and cresent. The eight points stood for the eight Turkic peoples, including the Azerbaijanis. This flag was used from 1918 to 1920, when Azerbaijan was independent, and it was revived on February 5, 1991. After the fall of the Soviet Union, independence for Azerbaijan under this flag was proclaimed on August 30, 1991.

As you can see even Whitney Smith claims that the modern national flag was used from 1918 to 1920.

We can also see the flag with the crescent on the red field behind the soldiers of ADR (See attached photo).

There is also an article by Azerbaijani historian Sabuhi Ahmadov in Russian. Observe the image of the Azerbaijani flag from 9 November 1918 in this article. It is the same with the modern one.

But this variant with the large crescent, that used in this template about ADR is wrong, it is just a variant, but not the correct flag. The file File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg should be replaced with the File:Flag of Azerbaijan.svg. Could somebody do this, the page is protected. --Interfase (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File needs deleting

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

---

This file is overdue for deletion: File:Phenomenology_of_Perception.JPG. 122.60.204.74 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files

There is backlog over at Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files if an admin has a half hour to spare. LGA _talk^edits 20:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

There is a present move request at the Crimea article, which would move that to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the former Ukrainian administrative unit, whereas Republic of Crimea would deal with the present unrecognised Russian territory. This has seen a significant amount, near unanimous support for this move, though not for a secondary proposed move regarding a different article. Having that article, with deals with only the Autonomous Republic, being titled "Crimea" is causing editing problems, as people are confused as to which Crimea it refers to. I suggest an administrator look into the move request, and perhaps consider moving Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea early, so as to prevent these issues. RGloucester — ☎ 23:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has opened a new thread at WP:ANI on this regard. RGloucester — ☎ 01:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing here as I've said on ANI: We've had move-warring on these articles. The last thing we need now is hastily implemented further moves triggered by discussions on admin noticeboards, without secure consensus, side-stepping the normal processes. There is a requested move, which was only opened two days ago and is still drawing a lot of participation. Let it play out normally. There is no need to "fast-track" anything. We can wait a few days more until the consensus there is clear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a slow-moving freighter, rather than a speed boat, no? What's wrong with patience? Howunusual (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would agree with Fut.Perf. On hot topic articles, slowing things down is usually better than speeding them up. The regular process is the best course to take. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• In that case, our Crimea article will remain fully protected, outdated, and violate NPOV, along with terribly confusing readers as to what the article is about. I understand where you guys are coming from, but this really feels like an exception. Try reading the lead of the article, as it stands. It just doesn't make sense, in context. Meanwhile, we have people establishing forks like Republic of Crimea (country) because no one knows which article refers to what. RGloucester — ☎ 01:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • At the very least, the article should have a notice saying that a discussion to move the page is in progress. That way people will know that something is being done about it, and maybe they won't make more irrelevant requests. It might also encourage them to participate. CodeCat (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • We have templates for notifying readers that an article may be affected by current events. I really wish people would relax and move away from the mindset that the instant anything happens it must be described in full on Wikipedia right now this very second oh my gosh I can't believe no one has updated the page yet! The project needs to care more about quality and less about up-to-the-second news. After all, that's what Wikinews is supposedly for, not that anyone acts like it exists. --108.38.196.65 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• • A fully protected article can be edited by an admin, if the admin is inserting text that has a clear consensus on the talk page. Get a consensus, ask an uninvolved admin for any changes that would make it make more sense after developing the consensus. The purpose of the full protect isn't really to prevent any editing, it is to prevent any editing that doesn't have a clear and obvious consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem. We can't edit it until the requested move is complete, as the scope of the article is dependent on that RM. That's why we had requested the fast track, however, I suppose I understand what you are saying. If there is nothing we can do, there is nothing we can do. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has now been 6 days, and there hasn't been anything new for the last 2 or so. The consensus is still clearly in favour of the move. Could an administrator please make the changes? CodeCat (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point I would agree that a closure would be quite legitimate. The distribution of opinions appears quite clear and stable now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I would agree with you. The key was to slow it down enough to get all the opinions and to insure it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, but it has served its purpose so an admin can probably go ahead and close it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Want to do the honours? You didn't participate in the poll, did you? (I did, so I obviously can't close it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look and close, although I may leave the splitting and merging part to the people who are actually editing the article and know the material better, such as yourself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't close lots of these, I handle more personality disputes than content disputes. It didn't take but about 10 seconds to get a complaint on my talk page, which I expected once I started wading through the discussion. Lots of passion there, understandably. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you closed... well, the "wrong" discussion I suppose. The one I was referring to is on Talk:Crimea, concerning a move of that article to Autonomous Republic of Crimea and of Crimean peninsula to Crimea. CodeCat (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I closed one that was an RFC and mentioned at the top of this discussion. I would request a different admin close the discussion you are referring to, it isn't good to have the same admin close two very similar discussions in the same day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And it seems Dbachmann went ahead and implemented one half of the proposal already, by moving Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and somebody else then half-implemented the other part, not by moving but by redirecting the Crimea title to the existing Crimean Peninsula, but nobody has so far made a formal closure. It would still be good if we could have one, to provide lasting documentation of the state of consensus with respect to that second part (the first being quite obvious). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of people are rather vocally against the close, including one who is really losing their cool. I suggest just letting him run out of steam, I'm not bothered personally, I expected as much considering the count. I will probably just sit back and let it be reviewed. It was an easy or obvious close, but I trust the community to review it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We still need somebody to close the main discussion, now at Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea, with respect to the second part of the proposal: whether there is consensus to move the geographical Crimean peninsula to the Crimea main title. Unfortunately, several people have taken it upon themselves to implement all sorts of things without waiting for that closure (somebody unilaterally moved yet another page, the disambiguation page, over the main Crimea title, which is certainly not what the consensus in the existing debate supports; yet other people have been opening yet more duplicated move requests elsewhere. Can somebody please step in and just wind up the thing that was already open? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Lyndsey Turner

So I just tried to create a subpage to see if this person was notable enough for an article but am not allowed to create said subpage? Would someone be so kind as to create it for me? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume by subpage you mean an article. Lyndsey Turner was deleted several times and protected from recreation by JzG. If you believe it deserves an article and you can make one which doesn't fall foul of the reasons the previous ones were deleted, I'd suggest you contact JzG directly and ask for the protection to be lifted.

I'm a little confused though by your saying you tried to create a page to 'see if this person was notable enough'. How would creating the page tell you that? Wouldn't it make more sense to work out if she's notable, and only create the page if you decide she is? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Subpages in article space are generally frowned upon. Maybe a Draft: or AfC page would help more. ansh666 16:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

An article by an editor in good standing should be allowed, as this person appears to be at least marginally notable. The previous issues appeared to be mainly that the article was created by a banned sockpuppet. Another version was deleted due to "legal issues" via OTRS, though I can't see anything obviously problematic in that version (though I can't see the ticket). I'd note that a further version was deleted as G4 (previously deleted in a deletion discussion) although there has never been an AfD for this article as far as I can see. Pinging @JzG:. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• How singular that two people have been motivated to do the same thing just after Fairyspit's latest sockfarming attempt was stopped - I wonder if this has cropped up in conversation somewhere? So, we have a real-life problem which is not unrelated to the obsession of user:Fairyspit with creating this article at any title he can get away with, which has led to a strongly expressed preference from the subject not to have an article at this time. If an article is created then everybody involved will have to spend a lot of time dealing with the endless socks of Fairyspit, who is obsesed with Ms. Turner and Benedict Cumberbatch. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• From Guy's comment I can't see how we can protect any article from unwelcome socking and the subject feeling harrassed is to write something brief and full protect it indefinitely. I'm not sure that BLP really covers the concept of articles being created as part of an online campaign by an obsessed person but this surely needs to be considered against the maxim of do no harm. If someone seriously wants to put an article up, I suggest you prepare a decent draft and put it up at DRV for discussion but I can't see how we can entertain any unprotected or semied article at this time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

• This is .. tricky. I'd agree that if notability is marginal, the subject's wishes should be taken into account. On the other hand, she has won awards (she is, bar one from 28 years ago, the only director at Critics'_Circle_Theatre_Award#Best_Director without an article), and at least one of her plays has an article itself. There are a lot of sources out there. Legal issues and sockpuppetry can be dealt with through our normal procedures. (Incidentally, I don't see that the article can go through DRV as it's never had an AfD). Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Any deletion can be looked at by DRV so having this discussion there is fine. I suggest we close this one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Guys, I was trying to create a subpage in userspace, not mainspace. Permission error is what I am getting. So will an admin kindly create that subpage for me, or shall I just create a new sandbox? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is a DRV going on at WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 22#Lyndsey Turner (stage director) Thincat (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • DS, I suggest you wait for the result of that discussion before considering any draft. If DRV agrees that we should write something new we can look at then at that time. In the meantime, I'd close this request and move all the discussion to DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I will start in a sandbox then. The deleted version will not be restored as it was deleted for legal reasons going by what I see written over there. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins with access, please check Ticket:2014012210016753. This is still an ongoing real-world problem. I have asked for something I can post openly, please bear with me. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

From the subject, with permission:

Whilst I understand and support completely the project of Wikipedia, I am currently in the middle of an attempt to stem a small but significant tide of harassment which has recently become a police matter. As the case is still active, I feel that it would be damaging to the protocol of the investigation to allow a page to be created, knowing that it might well become a focus for further intimidation. I do hope you can understand my concern in this matter.

Let's not be evil. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: that's helpful, and it must be very difficult to know how to handle these things. Thincat (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Guy has always been one of our very best OTRS agents and deals with these things with an aplomb I can only envy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Kind of you to say so, I do try to do the decent thing wherever possible. I agree this one is hard to call: Fairyspit may just be a troll, but it may be more sinister. As a former victim of internet harassment that crossed into RL, I obviously lean towards a more cautious approach. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fairyspit

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

---

I think it would be fair to characterise this user as banned by now, given the history of sockpuppetry and abuse of Wikipedia for stalking?

• Fairyspit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fairyspit
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit

I know it's a distinction that makes little difference but I think it's worth ticking the box. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Guy, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thirded. No harm in formalizing this. GiantSnowman 20:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse commban "My way or else" is not the way to build consensus, and their edits do feel uncomfortable and stalkery. We don't need someone like this here. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Move image to Commons

I uploaded commons:File:Banana boat.jpg to use in Banana boat, but it appears there's already an orphaned File:Banana boat.jpg that was intended for Banana Boat, and now the names conflict. Would someone mind moving File:Banana boat.jpg to the Commons? hinnk (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi hinnk. I have moved the local file to File:Banana Boat (band).jpg so the Commons file is no longer shadowed. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! hinnk (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential software problem

When dealing with a user with an obnoxious obfuscated username, I came across what appears to be an error in normalizing strings for display in edit summaries. I've tested it with an edit to my own user page here, where the same text was cut-and-pasted into both the edit window and edit comment. Yet one displays as (what looks like) "Butt", and the other as (what looks like) "Bumm". Can anyone else reproduce this? -- The Anome (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

On further investigation: this appears to be a display issue on my brower, appearing in some fonts, but not in others. Perhaps this is an artifact of the typography refresh beta, which I have opted into? -- The Anome (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not seeing this when logged out: this suggests the problem is likely to be related to the typography refresh. Moreover, the correct character seems to be in the HTML page source, even when I'm logged in. -- The Anome (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

See Serbian cyrillic#Differences from other Cyrillic alphabets, particularly the image (not directly related, but you get an idea what's going on). Not sure what exactly you saw, but there is a typographic difference in normal vs. italic Cyrillic glyphs. No such user (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And at least in Russian, it's used formally; see how ПОЧТА СССР ("Postage USSR") displays at 1 and 2 stamps. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly what I'm seeing. The interesting question is why it's different in different fonts -- presumably some support proper Cyrillic italic forms, and others just faux-italicise the Cyrillic letters? -- The Anome (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas

Can some uninvolved editors (admins and non-admins alike) go to Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas and either give their opinion, to help the rather deadlocked discussion forward, or close the discussion which ever way they see fit? The thing is rather contentious, opinions are divided, and no progress is being made (rather the opposite) after more than a month. On the plus side, most of the discussion was civil and no obvious socks have been spotted! Fram (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hint: start at the bottom. The question is: may a hook (ALT8) say on the Main page that a politian's father-in-law termed him a "disgrace" in his will (if this is the topic of news, and the politician sued a Greek Wikipedian)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

...Or just read the whole thing, and make up your own mind. The intention was to get uninvolved editors, by giving a neutral invitation. No idea why you felt the need to add your rather non-neutral hint here. Fram (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

ALT7, Gerda, was that fact hook. ALT8 was the milquetoast "observation" hook brought up from one editor's insistence on Wikipedia's self-censorship.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed my mistake and came to correct, ALT7 is the one ;) - "Read the whole thing" - you are asking people to waste their time. - I was not involved in the creation of the article, only said a few times (2?) that I think the hook (ALT7!) is ok. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War/General sanctions

If I wish to file an enforcement request under these sanctions, do I do it at AE or here? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Policy change on WP:BAN needs your input

Feel free to stop over to this proposal on banning specifically related to proxying, and give your input!  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC closure review

Please review the RFC discussion closure on the question of "Is information about the actions of Christie administration officials appropriate for the article?" The closing statement was worded in a way that was non-responsive to the central question of the discussion, which as indicated by the title of the RFC, the description of the question in the RFC opening statement, and the instruction to the participants for how to respond (namely, "Please begin your comment with Support or Oppose [meaning whether you support or oppose including information about Christie administration officials in the article], followed by your reasoning") was whether the article should include or exclude information about actions taken by associates of the subject of the article. I have discussed the matter with the closer here and here. Dezastru (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is disagreement from other editors with Dezastru's efforts to re-litigate this discussion (Talk discussion), as well as his attempts to insert inflammatory content in this BLP.CFredkin (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with an unconstructive/test edit done by a grieving friend or family member with a good intention

This I discovered today when I was checking the edit history of my high school's Wikipedia article. Although this IP address user seemed to have a good intention, it did not belong on Wikipedia. Who knows? This person did not seem to mean to vandalize Wikipedia and he/she must have been at the grief state. I actually knew Madison Holleran personally so quite frankly I was touched by that edit. I dropped a note to that IP talk page to let him/her know that the edit did not belong to Wikipedia but I did not sound deterring at all. Is there something I could have done when dealing with that type of vandalism? Maybe suggesting something? NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, since as you say they didn't mean any harm to Wikipedia, it wasn't actually vandalism (though still not right to be in the article, of course). Vandalism is defined as an edit made with the deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia; edits like this, misguided though they are, aren't malicious, so it's not vandalism. Thus, you could've avoided calling it vandalism in your message, but other than that, I don't think there was much else for you to do; letting them know why their edit was reverted in a thoughtful way was the right thing to do. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate what Writ Keeper just said, because it is very important. The concepts of "vandalism" and "good intention" are absolutely, 100% mutually exclusive. Any action taken by someone with good intentions cannot ever be called vandalism. Full stop. Only those actions where the person is actually trying to make a Wikipedia article worse can be called "vandalism". Bad edits which the writer believes are making Wikipedia better in some way (even if they are mistaken) are never vandalism; so you should not use that word when discussing the edit with the person who made it. What you should do is to remove the edit, and then politely start a discussion (avoiding accusations of bad faith or vandalism) and try to inform the person who made the mistake why it wasn't a great thing to do. --Jayron32 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To clear this up, I actually knew that that "vandalism" wasn't real vandalism. And I changed the title of this discussion. Yes, it is an edit that does not belong there, but I know that the person was just making that edit to remember Madison Holleran, someone I actually knew in real life (the word of mouth about her death is in the national level; you can Google her name). Like I said, I did not leave any vandalism warnings on that IP talk page. I just have a habit of thinking that unconstructive edits that deserve to get reverted, are vandalism but there are times when actual vandalism can be unintentional (such as blanking the page with an intention of a test edit). NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Add: I can take a look at this page. It's just that it is easy to mistake certain unconstructive edits (including good intention edits that don't belong on actual articles) as vandalism. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help needed

Hi, guys.

It's past time for my periodic appeal for copyright help. :)

Some of you may be aware that we very nearly lost User:Wizardman, who has been pulling a lot of weight in copyright cleanup. He threw his hands up in disgust over the apathy towards this problem here and the next day decided to leave altogether. I've very happy that he has decided to come back to some extent, but he's letting copyright work go for now. I support that. Never mind that he deserves to take pleasure in the work here, his loss to the project would be immense for other reasons than copyright. :)

But we nearly lost him because this work isn't getting done, and we need more help. Most of the time, this isn't difficult - it just takes a few simple steps. (Admin tools sometimes required; sometimes not.)

At WP:CP, you compare a flagged article to the source; check copied content for "backwards copying"; check for rewrite; remove copied content (if not compatibly licensed) or replace it with rewritten content, if proposed; check to make sure the user has proper notice and (if repeat offender) is blocked or strongly cautioned if appropriate.

WP:SCV is even simpler. These are new articles, and backwards copying is less of an issue. (When it is, it usually means copying & pasting within Wikipedia; check for attribution.) Removing copied content doesn't generally involve taking away anybody else's work other than the person who did the copy-paste. Quite often, this is WP:CSD#G12 territory.

At WP:CCI, you check the links to see if there's signs of copying. If a CCI subject seems to have introduced substantial copied content, you remove it or you flag the article with {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP for handling.

(More detailed directions are available at all three pages if you want them.)

Please, even if you give just like 30 minutes a week or so, we could make this a manageable task, if multiple people do. You don't need to bend to it until you burn out (a condition I've had to manage multiple times over the years). Just chip away a bit now and then. Even if you just take the easy pickings and leave the hard stuff for somebody else, you'll be easing the burden considerably. We have a few good people who toil away in that area, but the work is substantial, and we can't afford to burn out anybody else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is an underlying problem that keeps the copyvio treadmill going at the speed it does. Far too often I come across editors who add multiple copyvios over an extended period of time, somehow escape community scrutiny and only manage to find their talk pages after I block them. In fact, I indeffed no less than four such editors during the weekend Wizardman left (in fact, this is likely the reason he left). Please pay attention when you are handing out copyvio warnings -- non-communicative copyvio editors should be blocked, not warned. MER-C 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How do they escape scrutiny? What can be done about that? Don't feel you have to answer both questions at once, but it seems this could use some extended discussion. Maybe @Wizardman: also has ideas? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My hypotheses are (1) drive-by warnings -- this is more noticeable with image copyvios -- and (2) editors who remove copyvios not checking who added them and taking the appropriate action. MER-C 13:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm involved in a number of places on Wikipedia... Helping out WP:ANI (and trying if possible to reduce the drama), helping at WP:COIN and WP:SPI, reviewing and taking action on WP:PROD and WP:CSD, as well as some specific articles I work on somewhat long-term (both as an editor and as an admin). But Moonriddengirl is someone who has been awesome in the past helping me and many others, and if I can help her a little I will, so I'm going to try to devote at least a little time each week to this, despite my fairly limited background with copyright-related issues. I'm saying all of this because if I can help out, I'm sure others can too. -- Atama頭 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so how do we help ourselves out? When I come across a copyvio image I tag and remove it, check for other contribs, and warn the user accordingly. What I don't do is go back and check the user's future contribs because there's no easy way to "watchlist" them and having a "problematic contributor" list in talk space is frowned upon. So, can we come up with an easier way to monitor contribs of potentially problematic editors? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Check the user's talk page too. Twinkle automatically notifies the user without you even seeing his/her talk page. If they have a history of doing the same (two copyvio warnings is enough) then report them at ANI or AIV. MER-C 09:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I do check the talk page and report if necessary. What I would like is some kind of Wikipedia feature that would remind me to check the future contribs of editors who don't warrant a report. Mr. Stradivarius has some good ideas below. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, you check back in 1 or 2 or 3 months, depending of frequency of edit. We could use an effective automated way of reminding us. Not necessarily everyone the first time, because there are just too many, but certainly after the second. After the second, and certainly after the third, it's a non routine matter and some personal warning outside the notices can get attention--with just the notice people think its like a automatically generated bill, and you can wait till they really start bothering you. Even following up on 1 person is a significant help, if enough of us do it. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Google has a calendar feature that's handy for this kind of task. You can ask it to send you an email on the day you want to follow up. Microsoft Outlook has a good calendar feature as well -- Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be best if the information found by one editor could be shared between all copyright patrollers. Perhaps we could have a new tool on Labs that creates a queue of users to check. It could schedule checks depending on the frequency and severity of the copyrights that patrollers found. Or perhaps we could integrate this functionality into one or more of the existing recent-changes-patrolling tools like Huggle or STiki. Or we could make it a MediaWiki extension. I'd be interested to hear from West.andrew.g about this, as he is the developer of STiki and I remember that he was doing research about copyvio on Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

YES. Not just on copyright. In addition to our watchlists, many of us have our own lists of people to check back on for various specific problems, and it would be nice to have a way of sharing it. (at present mine are kept as lists of Safari bookmarks) DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Quiddity (WMF): Is WP:Flow going to have an automatic following-up/reminder system? I want one. Having a note magically reappear in front of me a month after explaining copyright issues to someone would be very handy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, ditto. "Reminders" is on the list of requested features, but not currently prioritized. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the original topic: please don't issue temporary blocks for copyvios. Understanding the copyright policy is a prerequisite for making long term constructive contributions and persistent copyright violators need to show this before being allowed to edit again. A temporary block defeats this purpose and often doesn't work, adding to the workload. MER-C 12:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just asking - Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Could an Admin review the recent edits of the unregistered editor User:Phecda109 as seen in response to my post seen here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#South_Indian_Current and especially in the one above I listed, where the editor says, "Go to Wikinews if you want to prove you have a fast cock." If I am wrong, likewise, please tell me. I assume good faith generally, but this stretches credulity. Please review. Thank you. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-Admin response) I just checked, and I don't see the edit you're describing. I do see Phecda109 advising you not to attempt to use OR in this artiole, and yes, he gets a bit emotional and pushes civility with the comment

Then please stop offering speculative research areas for this missing vessel, in an encylopedia. I don't say this lightly, Are You Stupid?Phecda109 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That said, I also see other users in agreement with that. Other than the above comment, I see no other problems with his claim that you were attempting to put OR into the article, but that yeah, that above comment from him should have been worded nicer.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   10:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer of that page, it seems to me that the vast majority of editors are behaving constructively to develop the page according to policy and guidelines. User:Phecda109, a new single purpose account, is the exception, and is causing a lot of unnecessary aggravation which is distracting from the proper discussion of a very important developing and sensitive article. Can the context of their involvement be taken into account in deciding on any action to be taken? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlog over at Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files

Can an admin please take half an hour to review the following, over a month has passed since they were due to be reviewed :

• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 15 January 2014‎ has 4 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 28 January 2014‎ has a image
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 8 February 2014‎‎ has 4 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 9 February 2014‎‎ has 2 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 10 February 2014‎‎ has a image
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 12 February 2014‎‎ has 4 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 13 February 2014‎‎ has 6 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 14 February 2014‎‎ has a image
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 15 February 2014‎‎ has 5 images

Thanks LGA _talk^edits 20:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed on a possible filter

I posted this at ANI a few days ago: We have had problems in the past with editors promoting concepts and terms from Europa Universalis - creating categories, renaming articles, changes of government types within articles, etc. Several socks were blocked last September over this and copyvio issues- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis/Archive. Yesterday I discovered some page moves relating to this and today I have found a number of IPs doing similar edits, all geo-locating to Rio de Janeiro. Two IPs in the same range were involved last year. Recently - that is from January until yesterday, other IPs have been making the same type of edits. Most recent ones are 187.15.70.13 (talk · contribs), 187.14.224.110 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.48.73 (talk · contribs). Others include 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.53.42 (talk · contribs) 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.38.249 (talk · contribs), 187.15.8.12 (talk · contribs), 187.14.230.20 (talk · contribs), 187.15.71.7 (talk · contribs), and 187.15.73.173 (talk · contribs). I'm still searching for recent additions of "Noble republic", Administrative republic, Republican Dictatorship, Revolutionary empire, Administrative monarchy, all of which can be found at the game's wiki[33] and were part of a now deleted template here which Admins can view.[34]. Part of the tactic is to add sourced text to force the phrase into an article, eg [35]. Note this is copyvio from [36]. Some edits have misrepresented sources, eg [37]. These are all throwaway IP addresses.

I spent some "lovely" hours (and ended up buying Charles Esdaile's Peninsular War, Kindle edition), when I found more copy from the same 187.15 and 187.14 ranges - the same problems we faced before with Turgeis (talk · contribs) and his socks. See my edits at Mutiny of Aranjuez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've ended up giving these long term semi-protection, but that won't work with the Europa Universalis vandals.

I've been told there would be too much collateral damage so I'm wondering if a filter would be the answer, but I don't understand filters well enough. Would it be possible to create one to catch the addition of certain words and phrase so that I would be notified when that occurred? This is an ongoing problem with edits as recently as 2 days ago. What I've realised since I posted to ANI is that some of the Europa Universalis edits add copyvio material unrelated to Esdaile (as well as misrepresent other sources). Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be fairly simple to use a filter to prevent non-logged-in users from 187.15.0.0/16 from adding any of those phrases to articles. -- The Anome (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Now created. For those with the appropriate permissions, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/609 -- The Anome (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin fix a "Cut and Paste" article move.

An editor appears to have wanted to "rename" Ballast Point Light to Ballast Point Lighthouse, but instead of simply moving the page, the editor created the new article and cut and pasted the information over to the new article. Could an admin fix this so that the articles "edit history" can also be moved with it please? I'm not contesting the move, just the manner in which it was "moved" so to speak.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Scott • talk 22:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlog

There's loads of pages waiting to be patrolled at New Pages Feed. Lot of pages are waiting unreviewed. I'm helping clean them up but additional help would be good. Thanks. Ethically^Yours! 09:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Block review request

Back in September 2013, an SPA did a massive resume/unsourced name drop into the article for Stratos Tzortzoglou. The article was protected for awhile as the SPA was clearly there to promote the actor. Today, I noticed a new SPA account belonging to a PR agency, Kcbny (talk · contribs) (see earliest revision of their user page), returned to the article and dumped a similar list into the article, this time with a ton of external links. A few days ago, they attempted to add back in all of the name dropping quotations and promotional fluff but were reverted. I blocked the account as a role account, but I just realized that per WP:INVOLVED, I probably should have not done so. Can some interested admin review the block and if they agree with the block, reset it under their name? Or if they disagree, unblock and thwack me with a fish? Re-protecting the article might be a good idea, too. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Upon seeing userpages like that, I typically block even if they haven't made any edits to other pages; you made the right choice. Per Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there's no real need to re-block; if anyone complains, give them the diff for this edit. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Passes the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" exception to WP:INVOLVED. Bringing it here for review fulfills any obligation as well. Better to let someone else do the blocking most of the time, but like Nyttend said, we aren't a bureaucracy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. I just wanted to keep everything above board and preferred a review just in case. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Paintings with wrong licence ?

see uploads of user:Lpen, there are some paintings that shall be checked--Musamies (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have checked the remaining images and left the uploader a note. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Will Beback ban appeal

Original announcement

Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Noting for those too lazy to click the link that the ban of Will Beback has been suspended under a set of conditions. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ferahgo the Assassin ban appeal

Original announcement

Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Noting for those too lazy to click the link that the ban of Ferahgo the Assassin has been suspended under a set of conditions. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations by User:Jnyerere89

I present to you this user, Jnyerere89 who is repeatedly uploading images without any license information on them. He's received way too many warnings, as evident on his talk page. Any suggestions on how to deal with this user? Thanks. Ethically^Yours! 05:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, I assure you all that my intention is not to defy warnings. I am not an experienced user on this site. I simply don't know how to add the citations on these images. I just need help but all the information I am reading about how to cite the images is confusing. Ethically (talk) — Preceding Jnyerere89 comment added 05:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(added proper indentation) I understand that it may not be your intention to defy warnings, and you may not be an experienced user. We all were once like you, even I. But for now, I'd suggest you edit articles and put an halt to uploading images, other than images you've taken and that are considered valuable for the project. Thanks! Ethically^Yours! 06:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. User: Jnyerere89 06:29, 31 March 2014

User:Jnyerere89, it doesn't matter if you cannot do the citations - WP:COPYRIGHT is pretty serious business - if you didn't physically take the image with your hands on your camera, it has copyright. That means it's usually not legal to upload it to Wikipedia. See our image use policy for more details. The short version is: if you didn't take it, leave it alone. Although you've been here for a couple of years, I left an image-related Welcome on your talkpage - it will go far in explaining things related to images DP 09:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country

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

---

A few hours ago @Dennis Brown closed a discussion about merging Republic of Crimea (country) into Republic of Crimea (a federal subject). I believe this was an erred decision as the two entities are completely different things.

For this reason I have created the following diagram which explains the situation:

Diagram showing the merge, short-lived independence, and separation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol that gave birth to the Republic of Crimea as a federal subject of Russia.

As you can see the confusion strives on using the same name for two different things. Let me explain:

1. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a subdivision of Ukraine completely separate from the city of Sevastopol.
2. These two subdivisions decided to merge to form a new independent sovereign country called "Republic of Crimea". Which we hosted at Republic of Crimea (country).
3. Then, this new independent country requested accession to the Russian Federation.
4. However, the accession was granted separately: one for the Autonomous Republic, and another for Sevastopol.
5. The short-lived "Republic of Crimea" (as a country) was never acceded to Russia.
6. The Autonomous Republic, as it was now a federal subject rather than an autonomous republic, changed its name to "Republic of Crimea" (which we host at Republic of Crimea).

I strongly believe that redirecting Republic of Crimea (country) → Republic of Crimea would create confusion to our readers.

Furthermore, we already have several articles about short-lived sovereign states which sets a precedent for this kind of articles.

The Republic of Crimea (country) was quite well developed already and explain the situation at hand.

All these arguments were explained in the merge discussion but for some reason they were not considered "qualitative" enough as other arguments as WP:CONSENSUS establishes. I believe this to be an error of judgement and for that reason I do not seek any sanctions against Dennis.

Therefore, having said all this, I hereby request that this merge is reverted and that Republic of Crimea (country) remains as a standalone article.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think other things need to be considered beyond just whether they're different. I'd ask, is it practical? Is there much that can be said about one that does not concern the other? I don't think so, really. They are so closely intertwined that if you talk about one, you'd have to twist yourself into all kinds of shapes if you want to avoid infringing on the "topic-territory" of the other. They may be separate entities, but they are only notable in combination, as part of a single historical event. CodeCat (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do believe this is practical. The article about the Republic of Benin (1967) sets that precedent which lasted only one day. In 50 years from now future generations will be looking about information on the Republic of Crimea as a country but they will instead find an article about a federal subject. I believe that what's best for Wikipedia is to keep a standalone article on the country so that when future generations search for this information they find an article focused solely on the short-lived nation. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • But what information is there, that is not already covered by Republic of Crimea, and could not be added to it in the future? CodeCat (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • First, that as soon as you start reading the Republic of Crimea article it states that it is a federal subject. That will be confusing to our readers. Second, that Russia recognized it as an independent sovereign state is a pretty big deal (source USA Today). You don't need to talk about that in an article about the federal subject. And finally, legally alone there are reasons why this article should be kept: this independence is what allowed Crimea and Sevastopol to be annexed. Without this independence they wouldn't have been able to join Russia due to restrictions in international laws and in Russian laws. So, the entity did exist and was notable by its own.. regardless of how short its existence was, for what purpose it was created, or its lack of recognition. We don't know if in the future this might set a precedent and the article is developed further scholarly. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental question here, is, is it necessary to have an article which largely duplicated Republic of Crimea, and which was confusing to the reader because of its title "Republic of Crimea (country)"? I think it was unnecessary, especially considering that it was merely a stepping stone into entering the federation. There is no reason, fundamentally, why this cannot be explained in the article Republic of Crimea, and in Sebastopol, centralising the information and making it easier to understand that there was a brief nominal independence where the two were unified. Regardless, this is not the discussion to be having here. The merger discussion is closed. One can talk about whether it was correct or not to close the discussion, but the merits of the arguments themselves are better left for the talk page of Republic of Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I will only say that my closing was based upon the actual discussion and not outside information, in accordance to standard closing procedure. I feel my closing, while difficult since it went against the count, was inline with the consensus but have no issue with it being reviewed. If my fellow admin feel I should be reverted, I will leave it to their judgement. If we want to discuss new information or anything outside of errors in my closing, this is really the wrong venue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are always mentioning the counter but you have never addressed the fact that the Republic of Crimea (country) united both the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol. Your closure denotes that you gave a lot of weight to the belief that they are "the same country" but they are not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Looking at the history [38] there does seem to be some cowboy action going on with those that disagree with the close. It isn't my place to enforce, so an involved admin may want to drop a note or two explaining that we don't unilaterally ignore consensus simply because we disagree. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You need to understand that the reason the article is being reverted is because they are challenging your declaration of consensus. They don't believe that consensus was achieved and I agree with them. Per, WP:IAR they can safely revert your closure. Admin closure is not final especially when it's highly contended. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• But there is a proper way to do it, otherwise you have a revert war, chaos. The proper way is review, not everyone saddling up and playing cowboy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. If you want to go the proper way then you, as the closing admin, should revert the action per WP:NOCONSENSUS as your action has been contested by several editors. But here we are, you are the one allowing this to happen by not reverting your action. People make mistakes. Don't want this to happen? Revert back, and either let the discussion go for more days or declare it as "no consensus". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Consensus" does not mean that everyone agrees with a potential action, it does not mean "unanimity". As WP:CONSENSUS says, discussions are "not a vote". It is often a "less-then-perfect compromise", as the policy states. Dennis was not party to the discussion itself. He is a neutral third party, and he has determined what the consensus is in this particular case. One can contest his determination with a review, but one doesn't just overturn everything because one disagrees. One goes through the appropriate channels. Please do so, rather then demanding that he overturn his decision. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me remind you once again that Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. His "determination" is being contested by several editors. I didn't create WP:NOCONSENSUS and that policy is very very clear about what should be done in cases like this. If you want to go through the "proper" channels then go read that policy. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• But it's not Wikipedia is not a bureacracy so I don't have to follow findings I don't agree with. You can challenge the finding but wait until the finding is negated or overturned before acting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin determined that there was consensus to merge per arguments. However, I noticed the following phrase in policy: "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." This opens can of worms and I think should be changed in policy, because it means that all decisions by admins in contentious subject areas can and will be successfully overturned by one of the "sides". Let's not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That depends on whether there was "consensus" or not. This is disputed. I believe that there was a "level of consensus" as that describes. I believe that the piece you are referring to is not with regard to RfCs or discussions, for which their are official channels to dispute, but with regard to individual actions on the part of an administrator. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read the policy. Dennis is a well-respected administrator. His decision was tough, but he justified it. Everything is contested by "several editors". We must now wait for a third party administrator to review this case, and see what he decides. In the meantime, I suggest we sit tight. Neither of us are fit to determine whether there was "no consensus" or not, as we were involved parties. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There was definitely no consensus. That doesn't automatically mean Dennis Brown was out of line to make the decision he did, but there's no way one can pretend there was any sort of consensus on that merge discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn Merge - Clearly a case of no consensus, the merge was ongoing while a-lot of other high drama was taking place involving the Crimea article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close by Dennis Brown for two reasons. First, essentially per Nytend below. WP:Consensus of small group does not override "Five pillars" of the entire project. Second, I do believe that Dennis Brown was an uninvolved administrator, and he did exactly what he suppose to do: he made closing based on the strength of the arguments, rather than on head count. That is consistent with policy. Dennis Brown was absolutely right. Most important, this is not the place to re-negotiate administrative decisions one does not like, as long all procedures were properly followed.My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, Dennis suggested this was the place to initiate a review of his actions so... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, Dennis was not right.

I examined every single supportive opinion and they all came to the same argument: "they are the same thing, therefore they should be merged". But they are NOT the same thing. The Republic of Crimea (country) united Sevastopol and the Autonomous Republic. The Republic of Crimea (federal subject) is the Autonomous Republic but as a federal subject (and without including Sevastopol!). This is huge. Sevastopol's trade and commerce alone doesn't even compare to the Autonomous Republic's thanks to the Port of Sevastopol. This is why we are challenging this determination, because the administrator did not give due weight to this fact.

His very own explanatory closure shows this: "The arguments claiming that this is actually the same country with the same political system and leaders, but with a different name (a technicality towards unification with Russia) are stronger than those claiming it is an independent country." This clearly shows that the administrator was completely unaware (i) that the Republic of Crimea (country) incorporated both the Autonomous Republic + Sevastopol, that (ii) the Republic of Crimea (federal subject) only includes the Autonomous Republic, and (iii) that the federal subject is not a country but the administrator closed this discussion believing so.

This is a fundamental difference that negates all other arguments. Per WP:CONSENSUS, a policy, "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." But this argument was not considered as qualitative at all by the closing administrator even though it was explained several times in the discussion.

So no, Dennis was not right. And this place, WP:AN, is the place to discuss these matters.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've refuted this argument before. The fact of the matter is, it is irrelevant whether Sebastopol is included or not. Once again, Sebastopol was only included in the temporary republic for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of acceding to Russia, which they did do separately. Functionally, the various systems of governance did not change within the Republic when it acceded to the Russian Federation, nor did they in Sebastopol. They were merely a vehicle that never had a chance to exist on their own, as entities independent of the entities they have now become within the Russian Federation. "Sebastopol's trade and commerce" are largely irrelevant in this situation, as the supposed "independent country" never existed long for this to have any effect. Furthermore, there was never any intent by the so-called country to exist as an independent state. Their only purpose, once again, was to accede to Russia. This was an entirely political matter, and if it concerns you so much that Sebastopol was included in the Republic for a day, then this can be explained in the Republic of Crimea and Sebastopol articles, as it already is. Such a fact does not necessitate the need for an article that functionally would have no content of its own, no history independent of the history of either the Republic of Crimea or Sebastopol. Not to mention that such an article would be confusing to readers, as they'd have to go about between Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea (country), when in reality, they are looking for the history of the process as a whole, not fragmented. RGloucester — ☎ 04:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is where you are incorrect and proof of this is within the treaty itself which states (rough translation) that, "The Republic of Crimea (country) is considered to be adopted in the Russian Federation from the date of signing of this agreement." The systems of governance did change because the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol were now united as a single united nation. This single united nation was the one adopted by the Russian Federation. Then, once adopted, Russia immediately added two new entities into its geopolitical system: the Republic of Crimea (federal subject) and Sevastopol (federal city). Source: "Since the Russian Federation is adopting the Republic of Crimea, the Russian Federation is adding new entities: the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol." The purpose is irrelevant. The fact that it was an entity fundamentally different than the Autonomous Republic and fundamentally different than the federal subject makes it unique. Add this uniqueness to its notability plus its historical significant and this is merit enough to warrant a standalone article. These are facts, backed up by reliable sources. This is not an opinion. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem. The territory of Crimean autonomous republic (a part of the Ukraine) was already occupied by Russian army at the moment of declared "independence". Hence it was in fact never an independent country. In this regard, all later official "treaties" with Russia are hardly relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just like the Republic of Benin (1967)'s territory was already occupied by Biafran troops when it declared independence. Puppet states are still relevant entities, and should still have articles about them. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I'm aware of the fact that the entities changed de jure, that is, in law. However, they did not change de facto, that is, in practice. There is no reason to confuse the reader with such technicalities. All the reader wants is an explanation of how the Republic of Crimea and Sebastopol came to be at present, how they entered the Russian Federation. This can easily be explained in the article on the Republic, and on Sebastopol. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note - In light of the edit warring that has been taking place at Republic of Crimea (country) since this discussion was closed I've fully protected it for twelve hours to hopefully allow time for things to calm down a bit. Dpmuk (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Dennis was not involved in any of the discussions pertaining to the various Crimean crisis articles. His closure was determined based on the merits of the arguments presented. He was willing to take a tough position for the benefit of the project, which is something too few administrators are willing to do. In past dealings with Dennis, he has always strived to be both impartial and efficient. I appreciate that he has taken initiative on this matter, as the mire of Crimea articles was really dragging down Wikipedia's coverage of the crisis there. RGloucester — ☎ 04:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Revert merge - There is plenty of information about the independent state to constitute a separate page. For example the pages involving the ascension process and international recognition should be merged into the article about the independent state. Furthermore there was no consensus at all to merge, rather the opinion of 1 editor (dennis) usurped the entire process and arbitrarily decided to close and merge without letting the discussion run its full course.XavierGreen (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Dennis Brown's close. As this discussion is a review of the close, and not another RfC, the question we should be asking is "Was the close consistent with policy, and were there any procedural problems with it?" In this venue, much like at deletion review or move review, arguments about whether to merge should not the focus of discussion. Instead, we should focus on how the close dealt with those arguments. In a contentious debate such as this one, there were always going to be editors who disagree with the close, so "multiple editors disagree with the close" is not a valid reason to overturn it. To me, the close seems a thoughtful summing up of the arguments made, and not in any way a "supervote". At four and a half days, the period allowed for discussion was short by RfC standards, but I think this is reasonable given that the discussion was well-attended. As Dennis implies in the close, it may be reasonable to revisit this debate in a few months when the political situation becomes more stable, but for now I don't think there is any need to overturn Dennis's decision. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have already refuted this above. The reason for this review is not based on arguments but on the process followed by Dennis which was contrarian to WP:CONSENSUS. His closing remarks makes this very clear: "this is actually the same country" when it is not. Per WP:CONSENSUS he must have given due weight to this fact, but he did not. This is why we are here. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert merge - Clearly no consensus existed to merge. A majority vote in favor of keeping the article was overturned on the basis of a subjective claim by one administrator that he felt like the arguments that the de facto independent Republic of Crimea and the Russian subject Republic of Crimea were the same -- without taking into account the fact those entities claim different territories and had different relationships with the city of Sevastopol. The wordiness of the arguments =/= the validity of the arguments. As I said, there was obviously no consensus, and Dennis Brown should have at least waited rather than wading in early to cast his supervote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a horrid accusation. This was clearly not a supervote, which Dennis would have no interest in, as he is not involved in these Crimea articles at all. Dennis did not ignore any facts, I'm sure, as that would not be like him. He weighed, on balance of policy, whether it would be better for the encyclopaedia to have one article, or two. Whether it would be better for the reader, based on policy concerns. He determined that it would be better to have one. And there one has it. RGloucester — ☎ 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith, and I take Dennis at his word he is uninterested in the content dispute beyond attempting to act as an administrator. I believe he both came to the wrong decision and disregarded WP:NOCONSENSUS in overruling the majority and moving the page in a unilateral action without any apparent consensus. What do you call that but a supervote -- regardless of intention? It certainly doesn't pass the smell test for WP:CONSENSUS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that there was consensus. It has always been the case that discussions are based on arguments, not on some sort of voting. I can see how Dennis believed that there was "a consensus". He never said that there was unanimity, which is not what consensus is on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen I don't care to get into the intricacies of these things, and remain strictly neutral, but if Dennis was going to close against the number of !votes, I think there should have been a much more detailed rationale. Knowing that Dennis found one side's arguments more convincing than the other is good to know, but his logic could have been spelled out. It was almost inevitable that if you did not give a detailed rationale, people would complain and this indeed is what seems to have happened. I would reopen discussion and in due course, let another admin take a look at it. I should also add that once it was clear (was it ever not) that Dennis's actions would be controversial, it might well have been best for him to step back a bit, not urge enforcement of his decision or advocate that his decision can only be overturned by certain means. I don't argue with what he said in those diffs, but it would have been perhaps better if he had let someone else make them. In this sort of discussion, someone would have.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert merge the administrator mistakenly confused 'good arguments' with 'his own POV'.--Wester (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Disclaimer: I was the one who submitted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Crimea (country), at the time unaware of the merge discussion which took place in parallel. The whole Crimean business turned into an unholy mess. The motto "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" soon turned into "encyclopedia where anyone can add their own version of Crimean crisis article". Currently, we have similar or related content at Crimean peninsula, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea (country), Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Accession of Crimea to Russia and who knows where; couple of hours ago User:Incnis Mrsi forked another one, Political status of Crimea. Articles were moved, copied and forked contrary to WP:CFORK, WP:CWW, and any reasonable definition of common sense. Our anarchic model failed big time, and we failed to offer consistent information to readers when they needed it most, busy in our esoteric navel-gazing whether the article is about a country, a region, or an event, so we created one for each. If we apply WP:BRD to article text, shouldn't we apply it to new articles as well? When you create a new article and it gets redirected, shouldn't we apply the same principle that onus of proof is on the one who adds the content, not on ones seeking for integrity of the encyclopedia. Somebody has to step in administratively and stop the uncontrolled flourishing of content forks. No such user (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, so-and-such bad Incnis Mrsi made this crap failing to conform with a hatemonger’s favourite multiletter acronyms, I expected some kind of this. Isn’t anything wrong that nine such articles already existed? Isn’t the tenth so ungood only because it started to be built only recently? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• First of all, forking content is more than fine when the articles deal with different subjects. This article is both intrinsically and fundamentally different that all the other articles you mentioned which justifies a content fork so that the article can be quickly brought to life and further developed. If the problem is that attribution was not properly given then notify the author or WP:FIXIT yourself by using {{copied}}.

Your assessment that someone needs to "step in" is highly subjective, specially when this is not an "uncontrolled" creation of content but a very systematic series of edits that are happening as the event itself unfolds. There is a very well-based structure on this ecosystem which exists primarily to give a very clear understanding to readers of all this mess. It is the involvement by admins what is actually causing rifts: the community itself has been very patient and very diplomatic on this subject.. until admins stepped in.

Second, the number of articles we have about the Crimean fiasco is completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion as Wikipedia is not limited in any way or form about how many articles about one subject. For example: there are about 6–8 articles dealing about the political status of Puerto Rico on Wikipedia alone and they all stand on their own. This is the same case for the "Republic of Crimea (country)".

Furthermore, you have no right whatsoever to assert that our anarchic model "failed", that's your opinion and your opinion alone. It is my opinion that the attempt to break that anarchic model what has caused problems here. Let the users work their own way. Admins should only be involved when utterly necessary, not because they believe so.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close, and note that I've said absolutely nothing on this issue until now. Any consensus that existed at this discussion for keeping separate articles is worthless, because our project standards do not permit the separate existence of content forks, and consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. When you have people writing entire articles on primary sources, it's absolutely necessary for the discussion to be closed to enforce project standards on the use of secondary sources. Wait for the historians to publish secondary sources on this subject before you decide whether it warrants a separate article — until then, or until we get to the point that the article is long enough that a size split is needed, any local editorial decision is unacceptable because no secondary sources exist that treat immediately-pre- and immediately-post- Russian annexation Crimea as separate subjects. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There is not and never was 'community consensus'. There is just administrator who ended an ongoing discussion the hard way.

BTW: 'wikijuridics' never works as an argument. There is simply not a good argument why the short-lived country can't have an own article. We have tons or articles about former Crimean state structures: Crimean oblast, Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Crimean Regional Government, Taurida Soviet Socialist Republic, Crimean People's Republic, Taurida Governorate, ... According Dennis Brown they should all be removed or what?

The Republic of Crimea (country) was recognised by Russia (and some others) as an independent country. The Republic or Crimea as a Russian federal subject is completely different. The latter is not a country but part of Russia. It also don't cover the same area.—Wester (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• By "community consensus", Nyttend is referring to project policy. Dennis based his decision in policy, which is a long-term community consensus, rather than any smaller localised consensus. You should also be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not usually a valid argument. RGloucester — ☎ 15:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is. If there are hundreds of similar articles than the ruling that this article cannot exist is extremely bias. It's all a mater of consistency. —Wester (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comparisons between the articles you mention are not very useful, and usually inaccurate.

  Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it.

  — WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

  RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend. There are no good secondary sources not only to justify the separate article, but even to reliably claim this territory ever existed as an independent country. This is merely a propaganda stunt. The territory was occupied during "referendum". The referendum even did not include a question about independence: one choice was to join Russia, and another one was to remain as a part of Ukraine. The historians of future will probably decide this is simply annexation. But we do not know it yet. Therefore, we do not need such separate page per "five pillars".My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• The difference between this jurisdiction and others, e.g. the Crimean ASSR and the Taurida Governorate, is that they're discussed as such in secondary sources. No secondary sources can possibly exist on this subject yet — the situation's still ongoing, and by definition a source written at the time of an incident/situation is a primary source. Even the beginning of the incident is way too recent for secondary sources to exist: academic journal articles take months to get approved, and books and other publications are slower yet. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Here's your reliable source: AFP: "Putin signs decree recognizing Crimea as independent state." That, in itself, is a treatment of the "Republic of Crimea (country)" as a different subject. Want more? Global Post, The Japan Times, The Washington Post. Second, you know very very well that Wikipedia doesn't base its reliable sources solely on historians. We follow WP:RS. In this case, the FOUR reliable sources presented before treat the country as a separate subject. Now that you have been shown reliable sources that treat the subject as a separate subject I request that you do the same for the argument that says that the 'Republic of Crimea (country)' is the same as the 'Republic of Crimea (federal subject)' as the closing admin exposed on his closing remarks. Furthermore, please refrain from referring to this as a content fork as it is not. A content fork, per WP:CFORK, is "a separate article that treats the same subject." You have been proven time and time again, first with reason, and now with reliable sources that the "Republic of Crimea (country)" is NOT the same as the "Republic of Crimea (federal subject)" as the closing admin exposed on his closing remarks. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• As a matter of interest, I would like to draw attention the apparent bad faith that appears to be springing up as a result of this incident. The account ObamaMan11, clearly some kind of sockpuppet, has gone around redirecting the talk and user pages of various users, such as myself, to Republic of Crimea. I hope that we can all keep a cool head, and stop behaviour that has no place in a rational discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 17:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close mainly per Nyttend – WP:CONLIMITED, WP:CFORK and lack of secondary sources. Mojoworker (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• AFP, Global Post, The Japan Times, The Washington Post. WP:CFORK does NOT apply as this is a completely different subject than "Republic of Crimea (federal subject)" as the aforementioned reliable sources show. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Have you even read what we're saying? These are primary sources. History concept 101: primary sources come from the time of the event, and secondary sources are produced later. By definition, nothing produced right now is secondary. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Errrrr...say what now? That's not what "primary source" and "Secondary source" mean on Wikipedia. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. Nyttend's position seems to be based on a misapprehension of policy. Also, there is such a thing as WP:IAR. Perhaps we should wait for the history books to be printed before writing any article. Further, I would have expected him to have AfD'd the Georgia and Benin articles, as they are not cited, and the Somali article's cites are by and large not written by "scholars". While other crap exists, this seems inconsistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:NEWSORG for why these articles, secondary or not, are to be treated as mostly reliable sources.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of the above discussion of my endorsement seems irrelevant – we are discussing Dennis's close, not the merits of the article itself. I framed my endorse as to the arguments supported by policies that Dennis likely took into account. Perhaps I erred in citing lack of secondary sources – it had been more than a day since I reviewed the RfC. But my endorsement of the close remains. Have you all actually looked at the article? What's there that isn't covered elsewhere? I think Fut.Perf. summed it up very well:

It's a common Wikipedian error to treat such questions as matters of ontology rather than as matters of reader-friendliness. The question is not whether the one-day existence of this entity made it into something that is notionally a separate topic. The question is whether we have anything to say about it that we aren't also saying elsewhere. As it is, the "country" article is and will always be 100% redundant to the republic article. We are not doing any of our readers a favour by presenting them this additional wall of text if they won't find any extra information there that they haven't already found elsewhere.

I think the proposal by Ahnoneemoos to merge into Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation also has merit (and as someone pointed out, would likely been merged there eventually anyway). But we are discussing whether or not the close was proper, not whether or not we agree with the outcome. Mojoworker (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Mojoworker: I understand where you are coming from but you need first to understand how the close was performed and what the content of the article was to understand why the close did not follow proper procedure. Per WP:CONSENSUS, one of our core policies, when determining consensus, one must "consider the quality of the arguments [and] the history of how they came about." One must also understand that, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." The policy then punctuates that, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue."

Our argument is based on the fact that the closing admin performed a decision to merge based on the closing remark that, the Republic of Crimea (country) and the Republic of Crimea (federal subject) are "the same country" (look at the closing remarks, he stated that explicitly).

That is why we are here: at least three editors pointed out in the conversations that although they have the same name, they are completely different things because first and foremost: one is a country while the other is a federal subject, but secondly, and most importantly, the country included Sevastopol while the federal subject does not. That in itself, and taking into accord other facts, make both subjects intrinsically and fundamentally different and unique. But the admin did not take that argument into account in contraversion to what WP:CONSENSUS establishes, as explained above.

Therefore, the merge must be reverted because it did not follow proper procedure.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert merge based on the fact that I believe that there was no consensus in the merge discussion. I would have posted an 'oppose' comment myself, but because I believed that the discussion was going that way, I didn't see the need. I'm going to write my reasons now, which really belong in the original discussion. You could say that it is too late to do so, but as far as I am aware, there is no way of knowing when exactly these discussions are actually going to close (or, indeed, what the outcome will be). Arguably they should never actually be locked shut even after whatever action is decided.

Anyway, my first reason to oppose the merge was that it is my belief that the duration of the country's existence should have no bearing on the validity of the article. If the country lasted for ten years before accession, then surely there would not even be a need for this discussion, and people would recognise that there should not be a merge. Now, I realise that if a country lasted for ten years there would be a huge difference between the kinds of governance that that country would have had and the kind that there would have been for a country lasting a day. However, I believe that that should only be reflected in the length of a country's article, and not whether that country has an article at all. In my opinion, if a country is its own technical political entity, then that is enough reason for an article (assuming it meets standards), and it should not matter whether the country lasts for one day, ten days, ten years or one hundred years.

My second point is that I do think that this will be of historical significance. I kind of get the feeling that a lot of editors are of the opinion of 'oh no, not another Crimea article!' Maybe they are right, but that does not mean that merging must therefore take place, somewhere. The fact that the article is about a very short-lived country puts it in a good position to be merged, relative to some of the other articles floating around. However, I believe that we mustn't lose sight of what content is right, no matter how it is spread over a number of articles. This particular article is about an independent country, and, however much of a technicality that might be, in ten years from now I can easily imagine readers coming to find this article and being shocked to find that it's not there. It may not have lasted long, but I believe that it was an important and historical part of the process that Crimea has gone through to come under Russian ownership.

My third point is an important point, and it is one that has already been made many times; the short-lived country does not correspond with the article that it was merged into. They cover different territories, so it doesn't really make sense. Actually, it would probably make as much sense to merge it into Sevastopol. So far, I have to say that I have not seen any reason to satisfy my concerns about this issue from those who support the merge. This, in particular, was a large contributing factor to my shock in seeing that there was judged to be a consensus to merge.

My fourth point will no doubt be seen as silly by some. However, it is what I believe, so I shall say it, whether or not it has much value. I have been imagining a user browsing the article about the list of shortest-lived sovereign states. The user decides to find out more about Crimea, seeing as it is right up there. However, unfortunately for the user, there is no page to satisfy their interest. I believe that Wikipedia should do better (and this is where people will think that this is a silly point). I would say that it has a purpose to quench people's thirst for knowledge, but it is held back as it is forever bound to conform to its existence as an encyclopaedia. I would have said that the fact that Crimea is right up there on the list of shortest-lived countries is something that adds some notability in itself. However, I accept that people may not feel that way.

My fifth point is another important one, and it is to do with the content that a restored article could have. Indeed, it is to do with potential new content. The repetition that the article had from other articles has been cited as a reason to merge. Given the arguments that I have already put forward, I don't actually think that this is a good enough reason in itself to merge. There should be enough differences once it has been clearly established what the territory is, and its short-lived nature. However, I have been interested in this article, and I was going to use it to add a 'military' section myself. If you watch the video, then you can clearly see that Aksyonov views Crimea to be independent in some way and therefore, the army is, at that point, specifically for Crimea only. It is neither Ukrainian nor Russian. It is only designed to be absorbed into the Russian forces at a later date. As a result of this, I would definitely say that here we have content that could go into a restored article. The Crimean army was always destined by its nature to be short-lived, and that matches the country, so I can't think of a better place for this content to be added. By the way, I think that this content is absolutely encyclopaedic.

Before I finish, I'd just like to make a couple of smaller points.

Some people were saying that the title could be confusing. To be honest, I'd dispute that, because I can't really think what else it could be confused with.

Finally, though I didn't follow it anywhere near as closely as I followed this discussion, I think that there was a fairly lengthy debate about the main Crimea article at the same time. It could be argued that while that was going on, it was drawing most of the attention and could have left this discussion relatively neglected, and so its closure was premature. It's a small point to make, as I say, but I think that appeals have been upheld for even smaller points than that. RedvBlue 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Redv, paragraph breaks are your friend! This is unreadable...no one is going to read all of the way through this wall of text. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Many apologies. I could see that, but I wasn't sure of the protocol with regards to large postings. I've put it into paragraphs, and I'll add these bullet points as well. Hopefully that's a bit more reader friendly! Thanks for your help.

• I believe that there was no consensus in the original discussion.
• I oppose the merger due to five main reasons:

• Length of country's existence is irrelevant.
• The country has historical significance, and should not be part of a 'Crimea article clean-up'.
• Key differences between the country and the article that it was merged in to.
• The article is interesting.
• I've suggested additional content which could differentiate the article from others.

• Two further points:

• I don't believe that the topic is confusing.
• Other discussions may have detracted from the one about this, which could have made it skewed, and the discussion was closed too early before this could be corrected. RedvBlue 00:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Much better and on point, Redv! It's always preferable to be concise, direct and to not take edits and editing decisions personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert Merger. There was no consensus to carry out the merger, and there is strong precedent in other articles for including short lived states, even those that are puppet states, or whose primary purpose is eventual annexation. These include the Republic of Benin (1967), a one-day long state often referred to as a puppet state, the State of Somaliland, which lasted for 5 days, and whose sole purpose was annexation into Somalia, and the Republic of Georgia (1861) whose primary purpose was annexation into the Confederacy. The primary argument of the pro-merger side seems to be that the article on the country would be unnecessary/confusing, but as the graph at the start of this discussion illustrates, the country and the claimed federal subject are in fact verifiably different entities, that existed at different times, and claimed different things. Hence, it would in fact be confusing to readers NOT to include a separate article about the country. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's strong precedent because secondary sources exist on those entities, treating them as individual entities. Wait for scholars to produce secondary sources, which cannot yet exist on this subject. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• As has already been explained to you before on this very same discussion, Wikipedia does not base itself solely on what scholars say. We have provided independent, third-party, secondary sources that treat the "Republic of Crimea (country)" as a separate entity. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• You completely fail to understand what a secondary source is; kindly educate yourself on the definitions of primary and secondary sources before telling us that you have provided something that, by definition, cannot exist yet. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• This http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/17/crimea-vote-russia-ukraine-sanctions/6513905/ qualifies perfectly as a secondary source, since it was written by a neutral news organization, covering the topic. See WP:NEWSORG, ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Even with the merge, the article should be written in a way such that distinguishes the alleged independent country (immediately after secession, and made agreement with Russia) from the Russian federal subject. Perhaps the history section could be divided into subsections that clearly shows the stages of Crimean secession and then accession to Russia. Abstractematics (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It is sad that anybody didn’t consider a merger of the “country” topic into some reasonable target: either “political status of Crimea” as I proposed in the original discussion, or possibly into 2014 Crimean crisis. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI: not only Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) now redirects to an article that says Crimea is Russia, and is indefinitely protected. Every competent person (I am sure: there are several competent editors here, at least guys who edited articles rather recently) realizes what does it signify. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I did make one change to the close, "to the main article" to "elsewhere". I didn't mean for it to come across as it must be redirected to a specific article, just that it needed to become a redirect, based on the community's input. I know that isn't the main point of contention here, but I still wanted to note here that I clarified the closing statement to be more in line with my thinking, that the final destination should be upon the community, not me. My single revert was technical, demonstrated by my contrib immediately after. [39] If time allows, I will poke back in later. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• The initial question was: whether should “Republic of Crimea (country)” be merged to “Republic of Crimea”. Since nobody posed a question whether should the article be replaced with an unspecified redirect, hence no solution that imposes this specific restriction but leaves the question unsolved may be considered a valid outcome of the discussion. If no specific solution is reached, then the legitimate discussion should continue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• I have to agree with @Incnis Mrsi, the question was whether "Republic of Crimea (country)" should be merged to Republic of Crimea (the federal subject). I mean, it even says so in the header: "Proposal to merge article titled "Republic of Crimea (country)" into this article." I don't know what is not clear about that. If you are now divagating into whether the redirect should point somewhere else then it's obvious that you were not aware of what was going on, and that your decision might have been based on not having an article about a country that lasted one day rather than on whether that country should be merged into one of the two federal subjects that it was converted to.

Furthermore, your closing remarks explictly say that "The arguments claiming that this is actually the same country with the same political system and leaders, but with a different name are stronger than those claiming it is an independent country". But users in that discussion explained you very clearly that they are different because of the annexation and eventual separation of Sevastopol. You then also stated that you, "must conclude that there is a consensus to merge."

So which one is it now? Was there consensus to merge or was there no consensus to merge? Were they the same thing or were they not? Because if the consensus is to merge both articles, and if they are the same thing as you alleged, then one must redirect to the other.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just notifying, nothing more. It would be obvious to redirect to the main article, I'm only saying if a better alternative exists, the community isn't bound by the closing of the RFC, and a fresh discussion on where to redirect would be fine (there seems to be some confusion on that point, which is the only point I'm addressing). The primary question at the RFC was about merging, not redirecting, so I didn't want to answer questions that weren't asked. Again, this is a review of the process, not a fresh RFC (a second bite at the apple, so to speak). Whatever the community decides is fine with me, I'm just not going to debate each point. Nothing I could say would appease some members of the community, so it would be foolish to even try. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why was the discussion closed at all?
I believe RFCs tend to last longer than this one, and it was not inactive (closed less than a day after the last comments). There was no need (e.g. BLP) for an early closure and it was sufficiently close that further discussion probably would be beneficial. The "majority" could have come up with a sufficiently strong argument if one exists (disclaimer: in my opinion they already had, hence my !vote in the related AfD) or the minority could gain support. Either case might lead to less contentious close in a few weeks.
The discussion was active and should be re-opened. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert merge and let the short-lived state have its own article, that briefly describes the political situation surrounding it. If we follow other examples on Wikipedia and stay consistent, there should be no lower bounds on the longevity of a state that determine its inclusion as an article. List of shortest-lived sovereign states contains links to a few examples. - Anonimski (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the main topic of this admins’ forum thread isn’t whether reasonanle alternatives to the merge exist (there as an already existing discussion, another discussion, article’s talk page, and others). It is about whether the “closure statement”, both initial and amended by the same Dennis Brown, conform to established procedures and requirements. @Anonimski: do they conform or not? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the proper closure for the merge discussion would have been "no consensus", since apparently there wasn't any. Anonimski (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus rooted in broader policy, as many people have said above. The "short-lived state" argument is tired and useless. We know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The question is, does it need to exist, does it benefit the reader in any way to separate out information that could be included at Republic of Crimea and Sebastopol respectively? Does it violate WP:UNDUE? Does it WP:FORK content from Republic of Crimea? These were the questions that were being pondered, and considering policy, it makes sense to therefore merge the article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You might confuse a sense with a consensus. Look at talk:2014 Crimean crisis #What to do after normalization? and talk:Political status of Crimea to read what actual main space contributors think, not protectors-rollbackers-blockers dispatched from dramaboards. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, localised consensus on a few talk pages does not override a larger consensus, that is, policy. Secondly, many more people participated in the discussion then have spoken on your various cited talk pages. I do, however, agree that the redirect should be changed. That's a different matter, however. RGloucester — ☎ 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

An implementation of policy, save exceptional circumstances, is also effected by editors’ will, without stupid protections and tricky closures. No, it is the same matter. Where to place the article’s content and where (if anywhere) to redirect the title was the matter of discussion that was interrupted grossly prematurely. We need a discussion to establish solutions by consensus. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we had this "larger consensus". Was there indication that "community consensus on a wider scale" was to merge the articles? Abstractematics (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because policy supports their merging, as the closing sysop mention in his closure. Policy is "community consensus". RGloucester — ☎ 02:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What policy is this that isn't WP:CONSENSUS policy? I don't think I saw consensus there. If there's no consensus, it's supposed to be left as is. Abstractematics (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:CONLEVEL. RGloucester — ☎ 14:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I read it and I don't see your point. A limited consensus shouldn't override "community consensus on a wider scale" but you still haven't demonstrated what or where this wider consensus is. If there is no consensus, isn't the subject matter to be left alone? As in, not merge and not close the discussion? Abstractematics (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Policy is shaped by wider consensus. No localised consensus of editors can override policy at a given discussion, unless it is an extreme exception with accurate justification. Keeping the article was not in line with policy concerns. Hence, there was consensus, because policy itself is a consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying policy is a consensus. On the contrary, consensus is a policy. Unilateral merging despite the lack of consensus is exactly why people are not happy with the admin's decision.

Interpreting "wider consensus" entirely as policy basically makes WP:CONSENSUS meaningless, because it means that any policy-based argument can be used to take unilateral action even if there's no signs of agreement in an ongoing discussion. Why do we have "discussion result was no consensus" if anyone can just override that and justify their action with a policy?

And if you say policy justified the merge & closure, you need to justify what policy it is, instead of just stating that policy trumps discussion. Abstractematics (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile Martin Berka (talk · contribs), another content contributor, supported merging Republic of Crimea (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into Political status of Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), virtually my initial proposal that Dennis Brown threw into the waste basket along other ones. Is here a person bold enough to put the end to the crapfest? The cause of redirecto-protectors with their war on cowboys is lost – few users trust their actions; now just admit it a.s.a.p. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I made that suggestion in the context of "what would be a reasonable way to condense and decrease duplication". However, I am no expert and my opinion should not carry weight in an administrative discussion. Best of luck to everyone trying to arbitrate the string of disputes arising over this topic.--Martin Berka (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a person bold enough to close this thread as a complete waste of time that no reader in the Real World (the people we're supposed to be serving) could give two pieces of crap about? Drop the stick FFS.DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Would a kind third party administrator please close this thread? It was archived, but I don't think the aggrieved parties would be satisfied without an official closure, and hence restored it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Propse deletion tags removed from the Icekid article. Comment

Greetings Administrators, I tagged the Icekid article with WP:PROD. Several minutes later, 123kiki removed the propose deletion tag. I Nominated the page for deletion using WP:CURATE few minutes later. This time, 76.65.174.150 undid my edit. I suspect that user 123kiki and 76.65.174.150 are the same people. These users have violated Wikipedia's policy regarding nomination tags. This needs to be look into it. Thanks! versace1608 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well first off, no, that's not what happened. 123kiki hasn't touched the article since you made your first edit. The IP removed the PROD tag which is perfectly acceptable per WP:PROD. Then the IP removed the AFD tag which isn't acceptable but which was quickly reverted. Looks like plenty of users have eyes on this already, everything looks good, no need for attention here.--v/r - TP 20:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been deleted now (G11).--Auric talk 20:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC is backlogged with more than 60 sections

WP:ANRFC is backlogged with more than 60 sections, and should be attended to at once. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is your perennial reminder that formal closure of discussion is not mandatory. If you've had an RFC open and consensus (or lack thereof) is obvious, then please do not list it at ANRFC. ANRFC is for discussions that are complicated and need help, not for routine things that can and should be settled by normal editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Do they all need to be handled by admins, or could a few experienced editors cherry pick the ones that are obvious and thus reduce the list? Alternatively, would having an experienced editor go through the list and make recommendations help? That way an admin could evaluate 20 or 30 of them, confirm that 100% were good calls, and then for the rest do a quick check and then rubber stamp them. With 47,446,297 registered users, 121,345 active editors, and 859 administrators, you need to make sure that the admins aren't doing anything that can be offloaded to experienced users working under administrator supervision. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

They definitely don't need to be done by admins or with admin supervision. As with AFD anything which would need the tools a non-admin shouldn't close and anything which is going to be controversial but everything else please do close. If you need help you can always post your suggested close rationale in the section (at ANRFC) and ask others to take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think any editor should be able to do anything that doesn't require use of tools. If you can close a discussion w/o tool use, then good. Any close that is poor will be brought up to some noticeboard exactly like they are now, and any close that is well done shouldn't need an admin rubberstamp to say so. Admin's don't run this project, we just have elevated permissions that we use on behalf of the community.--v/r - TP 21:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked over the open discussions and I'm willing to try a few NACs. However, as these will be my first closes, I'd appreciate if someone would check on me after I'm done. (Even if it isn't strictly necessary, as per the above comments.) Sunrise (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Specifically: here and here. Though I don't think the second one actually needed a formal close. Sunrise (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Those both look pretty good to me. The important thing about tackling an NAC is to really spend the time to totally understand all the policy arguments that are brought up (fortunately, neither of those had much policy-wise). On complex RfCs, I have spent well over an hour just reading the discussion and relevant policies before I start writing the thing up. Probably the most important element in complex and contentious RfCs is to show those who disagree with the outcome where and how to further pursue the matter. If you can show the policy reasons, and the rationale behind that particular policy, you give them tools with which to understand how a particular decision on a particular article or set of articles reflects the larger values and organization of the whole of Wikipedia. VanIsaac_WS^cont 06:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for the advice. :-) Sunrise (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply - Thank you very much for your assistance @Sunrise:. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Az-507

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.

---

Az-507 (talk · contribs) was blocked on March 22nd by User:Bbb23 for "Violation of the three-revert rule: Azerbaijani people; nationalistic slurs (anti-Persian)). At that point I posted an editing restriction notice to his page under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. These state "You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." and impose civility supervision. He continued to revert and make comments such as "Persians always steal other cultures" so I imposed a one week block. He made no attempt to appeal but instead created new accounts and edited from them and various IPs, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Az-507.. Mersin01 (talk · contribs) was actually created March 5th and Гасан Бакинский (talk · contribs) was created March 17th, so the sock puppetry began before the blocks. This user is in my opinion clearly WP:NOTHERE#Not being here to build an encyclopedia and I see no chance of this changing, so I am proposing an indefinite community ban. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sadly Agree - He was blocked, and chose to not only evade the block , but keep on posting the same thing that got him blocked to begin with. Go for it, he has himself only to blame for it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Seems obvious.--v/r - TP 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Simply for the battleground attitude in the area of AA2 is reason enough. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support and comment. As I said in my report, It's better to watch 94.180.X.X's activities too. That user will return soon. These users use Wikipedia as a War-Zone/Nationalistic forum not an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is just a tool for their own purposes! I heard Russian Wikipedia use a good system to ban them and solve problems like this one. --Zyma (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Moved this out of the archiveCan someone please close this? Including me there are 7 supports and no objections, and this seems pretty much a slam dunk. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

About VNG (company) and VNG on Wiki Vietnam

Dear administrators! I have a problem hope you can solve. I'm now editing content for VNG page in Vietnamese and when I tend to edit it in English. I can't search it under the name "VNG" itself. Even thought it was the same company. So I wonder if you may change it back to "VNG" only. Many thanks Nataliethaile (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No: VNG is a disambiguation page, and there is no primary topic - see WP:DAB for more information. However, I've added VNG (company) onto the page, so it should be easier now. ansh666 08:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC) (oh, and apparently I was welcomed on vi-wiki in 2009! who knew.)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dear ansh, thanks for your help so now I can search for VNG and access VNG (company). Since we can't change the page name. So can you make that when user search "VNG Corporation", Wiki'll automatic go to VNG (company)

 Done by User:Darkness Shines - see WP:Redirect for more info on what he did. ansh666 01:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(Btw, may be it a sign you should learn Vietnamese now. I'm glad to guide you LOL) Nataliethaile (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Darkness Shines and ansh. Thanks for your help to fix and redirect VNG (company) page. But I just found out that Wiki can delete VNG (company) and "reborn" it under the name "VNG Corporation" (content will stay). Can you help me doing this ? That would be nice for the brand and easier finding it from now on Nataliethaile (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user Redmen44 deleting unblock request comments (again)

Redmen44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently blocked for edit warring by User:DangerousPanda, left my name as part of his current unblock appeal. I left a comment as a semi-involved admin, but Redmen44 has since removed my comment and his original mention of my name. Redmen's behavior of removing comments during an unblock request is repeat behavior from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Blocked_user_Redmen44_deleting_unblock_request_comments. Repeating my observations from before, "Community discussion in unblock requests is common. Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#What_happens_when_you_request_unblock says "Often you will find more than one user commenting on your block, or a mini-discussion happening". This discussion cannot happen if a user insists on removing these comments."—Bagumba (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

While the individual incident seems under control now, do we generally feel it is appropriate for users to delete unblock request comments on their user page? A previous attempt to make it clear that it was not acceptable was reverted at WP:BLANKING with edit summary of "Longstanding practice, not a loophole."—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's my understanding that denied unblock requests may not be removed as long as the block is in place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Mine too, its a record of the requests made and behavior between time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The technicality that the user is WP:GAMING with is removing comments from others in the community before an admin has handled the outstanding unblock request.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Typically, any comments left by admins or others related to the unblock are considered to be part of the unblock and should not be removed unless there are other issues (ie NPA, etc) at play ES&L 16:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? No reasonable interpretation of policy suggests so. Such a policy would mean that if an unpopular person gets blocked, then all of her worst enemies can add whatever they like to her talk page in support of her being blocked, and she is not allowed to remove any of it. True in practice? Hardly. You're an errant panda, please reform yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of having an open discussion on the unblock request, what benefit would deleting others' comments provide? The admin that handles the unblock request can sift through the merits of all arguments. I would agree that once the unblock request is accepted/denied, the other side discussions—excluding the original request and the final ruling—can be deleted if the user chooses.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A blocked user should not be obliged to leave unwanted posts on their talk page, other than the material covered at WP:REMOVED. If you wish to change that guideline, here is not the place to do it imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur, and I'll note that I would hope admins reviewing a unblock situation are capable of using the page history to evaluate any removals. NE Ent 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I'm going to disagree with you as well. Most of the latitude to remove things from your talk page is suspended when a user is blocked. The sidebar discussion may have been helpful to the Administrator who denied the appeal (contributing circumstances, sidebar discussion by the blocked, etc.). That sidebar discussion should not be removed by the blocked until they're no longer blocked. The blocked editor may appeal for administrators to evaluate off topic sniping via the {{Admin help}} template if there's crowd members throwing rotten vegetables. If the user succeeds on their first appeal, then they're no longer sanctioned and they can remove the entire thread for the block (granted that's not really the most friendly way to vanish it off your page). Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I think you actually agree with me: I was proposing that they should not be deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Perhaps it's the wikilawyer in me reading, but your response suggests that once a block appeal concludes either way the blocked user can remove content. What I suggest is that commentary/discussion that happens in the context of appealing the block must not be removed by the blocked user until they successfully appeal the block or the block expires. For example: BadUser posts a block appeal on their talk page, various community members comment on it, the block appeal is denied. The user should not be allowed to remove the community discussion as it helped contribute to the determination of the administrator. Giving the blocked user the opportunity to remove unflattering commentary related to the block sets up the Admin corps for a "If Mom says no, ask Dad" Admin-shoping exception where all admins would have to be on the watch for Rose colored filters being placed in front of the appeal to push for the greatest success. Hasteur (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: We are in agreement that while the appeal is outstanding, comments should not be removed. That to me is the most crucial part. As for after the appeal, assuming the appeal fails, I'm ambivalent if it remains or not while the block remains active. I assume WP:BLANKING proponents won't see any point in keeping the comments if the admin has already denied the unblock; for that reason, I would accept it's removal after the block appeal as a compromise. At any rate, I consider it less important what happens to the comments after an appeal is over (even if the block remains).—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So, this comes down to "No consensus" on removing other editors' talk page comments in the wake of a block? I don't have policy to back this up, but it seems like context is important. Bagumba was posting in response to being mentioned as a part of the block appeal. That seems quite different than me going over to another editor's talk page and weighing in on their block status, where I am uninvolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin assistance (should be quick)

Would an administrator or really anyone double-check how I acted with the situation that recently transpired on my talk page, in which User talk:88.150.205.114 left a message at my talk that I perceived as harassment. I left a warning at his or her talk page, but wanted to make sure I did not over or under react. Thank you in advance. Phightins is Gone (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Templating people like this is I suspect is not a good idea. I'd just revert and ignore, unless they became verbally aggressive, in which case a block might be in order sooner rather than later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential edit warring

I don't know where to post this but there is a potential of edit warring on this page [[40]]. A picture of a ruined mosque is deleted and added again. The first addition was by me and I undid its removal. I find the picture a good example of ruined Ottoman heritage in the Balkans due to Muslim persecution. Others claim its not related to persecution or demand a source with exact wording of "persecution". I think the ruin is directly related to persecution as the article's section states: Muslim heritage was destroyed or neglected after the Muslims were expelled. Can someone interested check the page and give a third party opinion. If its a mistake to post it here, sorry. Thank you for helping. Bye. Bangyulol (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You can read WP:DISPUTE to resolve this situation.—Bagumba (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed ban from creating articles

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

---

For User:Banhtrung1. He continues to create articles on various athletes who do not meet the notability guidelines. This has been going on for years. He/she never sources properly, and at best we get a link to a sports site (apparently Bahntrung has been trying to create a Wikipedia page for a ton of soccer players whose only mention is on the website soccerway). See deleted contributions. The main issue is now we're stuck with a ton of articles he's created like this. They often cannot be deleted via CSD or PROD. Enigma^msg 18:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, creating a stub cited exclusively to Soccerway is not a problem - it is, after all, a WP:RS. However, what is a problem is Banhtrung1's lack of understanding of how WP:N works, demonstrated by the number of articles he has created being deleted. WP:CIR - and this editor seems to be in short supply. He already has one active topic ban, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250#TFD topic ban proposed for Banhtrung1. GiantSnowman 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What brought this up was not the soccer players and soccerway. That was stuff I found later. What brought it up was when I went to the expired PROD page and found about a dozen articles on NN tennis players that he had created. Enigma^msg 18:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't view the deleted contributions. Do you have some examples of what was deleted and why? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Only admins can view those. It was just an example of how many of these articles he's been starting. Hundreds and hundreds of deleted pages. Enigma^msg 19:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Admins can thus presumably make a decision on the scope of the problem and the risk of imminent serious damage to the encyclopedia. Admins, we hope, are also aware that WP:CIR is what's called a WP:ESSAY around here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Any editor that I've ever blocked for a lack of competency has been for the disruption they caused as a result, not for incompetency itself, even though I may have cited it during the block. It's only because citing "disruption" on its own is a very non-specific justification for a block, and it helps anyone reviewing the block or considering an unblock. -- Atama頭 23:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone say CIR was anything other than an essay. Regarding blocking, no one suggested blocking anyone either. Enigma^msg 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the entire content of one of the recently deleted articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

'''Axel Michon''' (born 16 December 1990 in [[Paris]]) is a world tour [[tennis]] player from [[France]]. He plays regularly at the [[ATP Challenger Tour]] tournaments.

== References == * [http://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=100086107 ITF profile]

[[Category:1990 births]] [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:French male tennis players]] [[Category:People from Paris]]

{{France-tennis-bio-stub}}

• This user has over 1,400 deleted contributions, which is a staggering number given he's only really been active since 2011. You typically see that kind of number on vandalism patrollers and admins, not people creating articles on sports subjects. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• There are 100-200 deleted unique articles primarily on tennis players which have been deleted because they don't meet the notability guidelines that they've created and a few hundred templates mainly on squads, teams and clubs (eg 1 & 2). Given that Banhtrung1 is making constructive edits in both this and other areas (though primarily related to tennis), but just doesn't understand, I believe we should impose the least restrictive sanction which will both prevent the disruption and allow Banhtrung1 to continue to contribute to notable pages. So, I propose:

User:Banhtrung1 is indefinitely banned from creating any page which is related to sports (including people, teams and clubs) in the main and template namespaces, including by moving a page they have created into the main and template namespaces. Banhtrung1 may submit draft articles or templates through the articles for creation process.

. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposed ban. We don't block purely on WP:CIR grounds because we don't expect competence of new editors, but when your incompetence persists and/or is creating a massive amount of work for everyone else, competence indeed is required. Please note that I've edited the end of your proposal. Ban texts really ought to include only the provisions of the ban; statements of "behave or we'll expand the ban" are indeed appropriate, but separately, since they're not exactly something that can be enforced. However, if you want, you can propose that the ban be expandable without an additional discussion, e.g. "If Banhtrung repeatedly creates pages about NN people through AFC, these pages will be subject to speedy deletion even if they don't qualify under one of the standard criteria". I wouldn't support that proposal (it's too vague), but it's the format that you should use for anything beyond "he's hereby banned from X" — if he does action X, action Y is hereby authorised". Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for fixing that up. I wouldn't go towards including something about deletion, I'd be about removing the option to go through AFC, ie removing the last sentence. But it's just as easy to bring that back to AN rather than give the authority to admins in general. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also true. I really can't think of a situation when my proposal would be appropriate; it was simply a somewhat silly example. What's more, this ban proposal, if successful, will make any mainspace page creations eligible for G5 speedy deletions anyway. We might do well to expand the proposal to prohibit him from moving pages into mainspace or templatespace if he's created them; otherwise, he'd technically not be ban-violating if he were to create a page in userspace and then move it to mainspace immediately. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd consider that gaming the system and so a ban violation, however I've added a clause to make it clearer that this is a ban violation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'd just rather remove grounds for wikilawyering. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, 1,400+ deletions in three years is more than one a day. That has to be grounds for some sort of sanction based on disruption and damaging the reputation of WP. Yes, if a dozen or so deletions happened in that timespan, you wouldn't be too concerned, but for that many, something has to be done. Without going through their talkpage history, I assume they've been signposted to all the relevant guidance on notability, etc, many times? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

...ahem, AfC is backlogged too... There was a recent case of another prolific page creator who was condemned to make new articles only through AfC. He was given his own category on the Category:Pending AfC submissions page so that his creations could be dealt with in batches. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - wording proposed by Callanecc seems spot-on. GiantSnowman 12:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Deli nk (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Enigma^msg 14:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Recalling what the eventual outcome of the last editor we restricted from creating articles directly via a AFC review (They eventually became topic banned after the community/ArbEnforcement got tired of the disruption that was occuring) I have low confidence in just kicking the problem down the road. Hasteur (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support proportional and appropriate. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - per GiantSnowman. This user has no idea about WP:GNG as proven by the amount of non-notable articled deleted. JMHamo (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support In the absence of any rebuttal from the editor, this type of behavior unchecked is what frustrates others into quitting WP.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm concerned about this user's lack of communication -- only ~1.5% of his edits are to talk pages and I don't think he pays attention to his talk page. This is easily ending up as one of those "discover your talk page only after you've been blocked" cases. MER-C 05:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • True, he doesn't communicate and ignores messages on his talk page (there have been a number of complaints from other editors, and he ignores them). But I'm not sure what the alternative is here. Additionally, I guess someone should create an AfD for the 50+ NN stubs he's created. It's frustrating, because they shouldn't have to go through AfD, but someone always pops up and says since there's a link on the page it can't be speedied or PRODed. Enigma^msg 06:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I recently created User:MER-C/payattention.js for this purpose, but I'm ambivalent towards applying it or waiting for the editor to earn himself a temporary block for violating the proposed topic ban. MER-C 13:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • On second thoughts, I have applied the script to point to this discussion. Once he has commented here, please delete User:Banhtrung1/common.js. MER-C 13:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - been here long enough, and presumably seen enough of their work deleted, to be expected to have read the notability requirements. Callanecc's proposal strikes a balance between allowing continued extensive editing while preventing further disruption. Euryalus (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Callanecc and GiantSnowman, but do share Hasteur's concern.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, appears necessary, although I also find the AfC exemption problematic. Nsk92 (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - per Callanecc, but given the usual backlog at AfC, would it not be better to try to get him to interact with WP:FOOTY or WP:TENNIS? I would be happy for him to create userspace articles for review by the respective projects for notability. Still can't understand why someone would continue to create article after article in a competent manner, just to have the majority of them deleted. Looking at his / her talk page, there seems to be a bit of an issue around communication. If this can get them talking then they could be much more productive, especially in the football field where they operate in areas that need more attention. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

This might sound like a weird question...

• Can I request an interaction ban against another user who constantly bothers me in discussions? If so, I'll start such a thread at ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You can start such a thread either here or at ANI. "Bothers" is a rather vague statement, so be cautious/solid about your policy-based links, and provide appropriate diff's ES&L 12:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is that I feel as though another user has been trying to bully me for years because I don't share his/her viewpoints (I've seen it happen to other people too, but I can't speak for them). But I'll start a thread in a few minutes. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done (didn't have time to do it before work). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SALT Designemporia

Hello, please salt "Designemporia", "Designemporia.in", "Design Emporia" titles. Non-notable topics/promotional spam continuously being created directly in articles main space by SPAs. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

History:

(del/undel) 10:20, 3 April 2014 GB fan (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Designemporia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 07:25, 26 February 2014 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Designemporia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 09:36, 3 April 2014 Fram (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Designemporia.in (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 07:43, 28 February 2014 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Designemporia.in (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 10:20, 3 April 2014 GB fan (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Design Emporia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)

All titles now WP:SALT-d

There may be a valid article there. I'm happy to help with re-creation.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for an admin with oversight ability to look at an SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc

Normally oversight-related requests are about suppressing edits, but this one is about peeking at what is already suppressed. If you saw my message to the functionaries mailing list, please note that I have amended and clarified the evidence (there may have been some confusion earlier). vzaak 22:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Deskana and I are both working this one - Alison ^❤ 23:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• CU case is now completed - Alison ^❤ 19:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected talkpage

This comes up a lot, but... Xavexgoem retired and fully protected his talkpage. Someone should fix that, as the page was not a target for vandalism as far as I can tell. Nathan ^T 20:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Guess I could've sent it to RPP. Oh well, out of practice. Nathan ^T 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to semi-protection. Enigma^msg 21:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Suspected block evasion case

Resolved

 – SPI case now closed

Can someone take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redmen44? It's a suspected block evasion by a sock; it's been open for over 2 days without comment, as WP:SPI looks to be generally backlogged. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove autoblock

Resolved

Some time back, I blocked User:Slowking4 for a range of problems. I've just discovered that User talk:TaraInDC, who's at an edit-a-thon, is being autoblocked as a result. I've attempted to remove the autoblock by clicking the "unblock" button in the

Block ID: #5049824 (BlockList • unblock)

line, but I got an error message, and I'm not at all confident that this is the right result, anyway. I'm on a bad Internet connection, so I'd really appreciate it if someone else could remove this autoblock for me. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, apparently [41] NE Ent 19:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

UK Banknotes

File:Bank Of England10.png and others..

I note the permission needed to be renewed, any takers? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly applicable on copyright grounds, as this is unambiguously fair use according to US copyright law. Do any UK uploaders have reason to fear some sort of prosecution in relationship to this or other images? Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The permission is required because of British anti-counterfieting laws. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, will any UK uploaders potentially be affected? Being an American, I would be able to upload these images without problem, because there's no applicable requirement for me. Is there a UK law prohibiting UK subjects from accessing a website in which such images are displayed without permission, and/or are the uploaders of these images, such as Cloudbound, known to be UK subjects or otherwise subject to these laws? If the answers are "no" for all of them, we need not take the effort. Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to ask a lawyer for a detailed answer. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per below, it should be taken up by WMF Legal. For info, the criminal offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981 is "for any person, unless the relevant authority has previously consented in writing, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any British currency note or any part of a British currency note." I'd say the uploaders are no longer reproducing the image - I think WMF are now doing that. Citizenship is irrelevant, but I think WMF can feel safe that UK authorities won't be seeking their extradition for trial in the UK (presumably!), and probably wouldn't get it even if they tried. But I would think that WMF wouldn't be keen on even theoretically committing a UK criminal offence. (Where does Jimbo live these days?) As far as readers are concerned, there may be an argument that those in the UK are committing an offence by displaying it on their screens. (I'm guessing). Disclaimer: I'm a UK lawyer but know no more about the law of forgery than the next googler DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think these kinds of questions are why WMF has a legal team. VanIsaac_WS^cont 09:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's also why WMF has community liasons -- I've asked Maggie Dennis [42] for input. NE Ent 11:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. :) The handling of this (which I'm happy to pass on) may vary depending on what we're asking, so I want to get clarification. Are we looking for information on the impact of UK users on uploading/viewing these? Or for information on Wikimedia Foundation liability as the online service provider for the website being used to host it? (In case of the latter, I suspect that "actual knowledge" plays a part, but can find out.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, probably both those questions. But, in fact, if we just sought a renewal of the annual permission from the Bank of England it would make those questions redundant. This is the relevan BofE webpage and in these guidelines they say to renew you just email the relevant official. I was just about to go ahead and do that (as it seems no one else has done it) and it occurs to me that if the service provider is "reproducing" the image on the web, the request should really come from WMF. But I don't know if that's right or if that's something WMF would do anyway. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are serious restrictions on the degree to which the Wikimedia Foundation can involve itself in content creation or curation, so I do not expect this is a request they would issue. Beyond that, if the request expires soon, waiting for legal to do it would probably not be a great idea, it can take some weeks to get a response from legal. (Sometimes, much faster - depends on the complexity of the issue and who has time.) The question of legal liability for users may be addressed through a meta:Wikilegal posting, and I'm happy to ask for it. I can also ask if the Wikimedia Foundation has concerns about its own liability, but I personally suspect that this is the kind of thing that comes up when it comes up. That is, if they receive a takedown notice or other complaint from a content owner, they respond accordingly. Online service providers are limited in liability for what users do with their services. But since I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation attorney, and this is just my assumption, I'm happy to ask. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, and because it won't hurt, I've re-applied to the Bank of England for continued permission to host the £10 and £50 note images. Cloudbound (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... can I ask that someone reviews the other notes as well? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The other 2 relevant media files being File:Adam smith note.jpg & File:Shakespeare20Lbanknote.jpg specifcally Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the Adam Smith note is replaceable fair use, and the Shakespeare note should probably include the word specimen across it. If permission is granted, I believe it would cover all Bank of England notes we display. Cloudbound (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bank of England have granted permission, so I have updated the templates for File:Bank Of England10.png and File:New Bank of England £50 note 2011.jpg. Cloudbound (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As a result of the above request, the Wikimedia UK office has received a letter from the Bank of England granting permission under Section 18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 for Wikipedia to display banknote images shown in accordance with conditions 1-4 and 5e. See otrs:7487596 for more details. Regards -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Global blocks

Question for you all. I read WP:GB and followed a link or two to meta and elsewhere, but the first seems to be about blocking IPs globally, and the meta page seemed to be under construction. So my relatively simple question is, how do I get an account blocked across all the wikis in the world-wide world? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can contact a Steward or request a lock on an account at Meta. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Elockid. So "global lock" is the keyword. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Global blocks are for IP addresses, and global locks are for accounts. --Rschen7754 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend cleared that up on the policy page. I'm just a peon, Rschen, not an international sophisticated highway demon like you. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You may want to semi-protect Bob_Coy for a bit

Pastor Bob Coy (for those not familiar - he pastored a mega church down my way , Calvary Chapel ), stepped down over what is being called "Moral Failings". Some sources in the press are saying a bit more than that, however, their source is someone's blog, so I doubt they'd pass our reliable sources test. May want to semi-protect that article for a bit to head off speculation. So far the associated article Calvary_Chapel_of_Fort_Lauderdale appears to be quiet, but as that was the church he pastored, it might not hurt for semi on that too.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem? This is the official blog of the organization. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not the blog being used as a source, it's | this one , which is not official in anyway. The Sun-Sentinel picked up that blog (with links) and used it as a source. The church's blog says very little about the matter. My concern is that that blog (not the official one) or others like it will be used to fuel speculation about Bob Coy.

(For the record, I don't attend his church, nor am I employed by it. I met him once and that's my only tie to him :) )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pages are not protected per-emptivly, if a problem arises then you may request it be protected. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also if the Sun-Sentinel is using that blog as its source, it doesn't matter if the source they used passes RS or not, what matters is whether or not the Sun-Sentinel does (and it does). Playing "Sourceception" isn't a rabbit hole we want to go down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree you Bushranger, except where a living person is concerned. If the Sun-Sentinel or any news organization quotes that blog, it's can't be considered a reliable source and cannot be in that article, as it fails RS and as an extension BLP. Once again, let's semi that article to prevent that from happening, he's a high profile individual and as such, there's going to be individuals that will want to use that (or other unreliable sources) to stir shite up. Semi it for a while, put Pending Changes on it, anything but leave it wide open. That's pretty much S.O.P for high profile individuals that hit the news during controversy.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   10:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be getting almost no editing traffic, considering. In my experience, if there were going to be vandalism based on the news, it would have probably happened by now. I'm keeping half an eye on it and am not averse to protecting if there's an uptick in vandalism, but so far I don't think there's a problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of a the 'requested move' procedure.

A contributor is seeking to get around the fact that a proposed article [43] is currently a declined AfC (and incidentally a recreation of an article already deleted by a clear consensus at AfD), by making a 'requested move' from AfC space to article mainspace. [44] Since this is clearly a misuse of the requested move procedure, can I ask that an admin close the requested move as null and void. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Please close the move request as out of order. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the contributor concerned is arguing that the statement "Remember to base arguments on article title policy" in the template rules out objections based on the previous AfD etc. There is also the issue that the AfC has been moved from 'Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to skull' to 'Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull' - which I'm fairly sure isn't a normal procedure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sort of, I'm still figuring out the paperwork. Never had to do one like this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If @DGG: is around, I wouldn't mind him taking a look. I closed, removed the template and manually removed from the RM main page as being out of process. He knows much more about AFC than I do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see @EdJohnston: already warned him about this, and he might want to know about this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the said contributor. What I am trying to achieve is to move the draft located at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull to the target page Voice to skull, which is currently a redirect page. Please help me find a way. Thanks. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You use the AFC process and submit it. It seems to be getting rejected for the same reason it was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull, so my guess is that it won't be created at all. If it isn't notable and is only fringe, there is nothing you can do to get it put in main space. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Electronic harassment, which is already prone to this kind of lunacy. We do not need this article, best to forget it. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Password change advisory

FYI: Wikimedia servers were vulnerable to the heartbleed bug, that potentially exposed user passwords and session tokens to attackers (along with the site's cryptographic keys). The servers were patched yesterday and all existing tokens were or will be invalidated (i.e. everyone is being forcibly logged out and will have to log in again). As a precautionary measure, the WMF is recommending that all users change their passwords. Some VPT posters are suggesting this be taken especially seriously by users with advanced permissions (admin and above), which seems about right to me.

I'll add: if you use the same password on more than one site, then change them all, especially any sensitive ones such as finance, email, etc. Use your browser password store, or password manager software to remember multiple passwords across different sites. This bug is very widespread and probably affects multiple sites that you use.

Also, if your browser implements certificate pinning, you may have seen a warning message about the WMF site certificate having changed. The WMF did change the certificates because of the bug, so the change is a good thing. If you didn't get such a warning, don't worry about this. The feature is not yet widely supported.

References:

• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2014-April/000666.html wikitech-ambassadors email about WMF server status, containing the password change recommendation
• http://heartbleed.com - technical description of the bug
• VP/T thread permalink to current version, live link that may have newer posts but that will go stale after a while.
• media coverage - there is a lot, try a web search.

70.36.142.114 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

What is the proper mechanism (if any) for reporting potential violations of interaction bans? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Contacting the admin who imposed the original interaction ban would seem a good first step. Maybe they could take it from there. Irondome (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I determine precisely which admin imposed the ban? Would it be whoever posted it to the list of topic bans? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be logical, yes. They must have had some involvement. At least they could point you in the right direction. Irondome (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BANEX says, in part:

Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following:

...

• Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include:
  • asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once).

Based on the foregoing, I would start by contacting an Administrator who notified you of the IBAN. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now asked this question of the admin who posted it on the list of topic bans, and hopefully he can tell me what to do next. Thank you for your help! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries mate. Hopefully the admin can take the issue from here. Hope it gets sorted ok Irondome (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Avario87

An SPI case was recently brought to my attention. Avario (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked in 2007 for uploading copyvios, and returned in 2009 as Avario87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Technically, this would be block evasion, but given that they haven't repeated the same mistakes that got them blocked and probably would have gotten unblocked in 2009 if they had asked for it, I'm inclined to just let this one slide. Any differing opinions? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you King of <3. Very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avario87 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

[above "Thank you..." comment was added by Avario] I'd say no block right now (we're really at a statute-of-limitations point by now), but Avario, you need to be really cautious. I note multiple copyright-infringement warnings at your talk page, and that makes me wonder whether or not you've really understood the concept and or how to comply with legal standards. Since we'll be bending the rules to led you continue to edit, let me suggest that you be given a strict warning to comply with all copyright standards on pain of being (re)blocked on the first or second infraction. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The end does not justify the means. If Avario wanted to edit again, they were required to submit a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request. They may then have had specific restrictions placed as a condition of unblock. Creating a new account is block evasion, whether or not they have repeated the behaviours. Even WP:OFFER is not a guarantee of unblock - certain conditions still need to be met. I haven't checked, but did the editor even formally link the accounts as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY? ES&L 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

‎‎Dr Houshian

Hello, this user has created a page ‎Dr Shirzad Houshian about himself, I have tagged it for SD under WP:A7 and WP:G11. I noticed that Ruby Murray has also tagged one more of his article A new technique for closed management of displaced intraarticular fractures of metacarpal and phalangeal head delayed on presentation under WP:G12, and I think this page also belongs to ‎Dr Houshian own research work when I investigated on cross ref with DOI(Digital object Identified) that is clearly mentioned in the link from which he copied his own research paper in Wikipedia, see here. I think this user being Dr. as his user name suggest is advertising himself. I am not an admin so I can not delete his article or block the user as I don't have rights still, can any one respond to the user? Thanks A.Minkowiski (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done There was a long list of CSD articles waiting for deletion - I deleted both of these - please have patience. The editor has been warned not to repeat. What else are you expecting? He'll likely be blocked if he does either again. Also, next time, please report on WP:ANI, not here ... and remember that you are REQUIRED to advise the editor when you report them DP 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will's editcountitis

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.

---

Have a look at a few of these 500 edits (there are plenty more [45], [46], etc.). Then read the short discussion at User talk:Wilhelmina Will#Your third sandbox, and finally consider these edits made earlier today (the compromise ten are at the bottom). Should Wilhelmina Will be persuaded to stop doing this? (or should I get out more?)  —SMALLJIM  20:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We agreed 10 each day till Good Friday - Good Friday is still 8 days away. You're the one breaking their word. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've cleared the sandbox of everything except what it, as a sandbox, should hold. I don't care about the spiritual trouble I'll suffer for breaking my Lent promise, I can endure that. I can't take being harassed by you or by any other editor. As I said in my conversion edit's summary, I request that no modifications be made to any of my sandboxes by any other editor, at any time. In return I will not resort to such practices any more. I only hope you can see fit to grant me such courtesy, and then leave me alone. I can only hope so. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Smalljim - If an otherwise productive user is doing weird s**t in their sandbox, why, exactly, does it bother you? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Would we be happy if we discovered that the person who we thought was a model employee had been taking the office car out for a spin every evening for months? I see it as a matter of trust. And what if this caught on as a popular pastime?  —SMALLJIM  20:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Smalljim I repeat, I kept my end of our agreement; I don't know where you come off thinking I didn't. Why couldn't you just keep your end of the agreement as well? Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be conducting busywork just to achieve some daily target. The 200-odd moves may have been necessary and urgent for all I know, but the creation of 40 redirects to a minor article like Fourhorn poacher is not something that is done in the normal run of events because it is not useful. Is it editcountitis, or a holy boondoggle? The real challenge would be to find 500-odd useful tasks to do every day, if that's the requirement.  —SMALLJIM  21:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Smalljim I honestly can't believe you. The redirects are to cover all potential common names of a fish species, and User:Ruigeroeland requested for me to move those moth pages. I have done absolutely nothing wrong; you are harassing me and accusing me of terrible things. I wish you would stop. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK - I see that request now. I'm sorry. Although I still have doubts about the need for all those redirects, I don't want to upset you. I will not bother you further. I'll close this as resolved, and will write an apology on your talk page.  —SMALLJIM  21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

RfPP backlog

Hi all, it seems RfPP to be backlogged, with requests from a few days ago. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Azhar sabri

Azhar sabri (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure what to do with this user, but he has spammed and vandalized multiple wikis with his junk including this and this and shows no sign of stopping his disruption here or anywhere else; already he has proceeded to create his userpage and associated article as blatant duplicates of Satyapal Chandra. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking they're also copyright infringements of the CC-BY-SA guidelines since they don't credit the original source. And this user has done nothing constructive to Wikipedia so far, and shows severe competence issues at best. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've indeffed him as a vandalism-only account.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

There are a lot of requests waiting for admin attention at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, could I please get some help from any admins who are free. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

New user using multiple accounts

He is not abusing them, but if there's some kind of newbie friendly templated message saying "please use one account", can someone drop it at Patryk Rutkowski (talk · contribs) / User:Norbituz. Almost certainly also the same editor as Kiper1922 (talk · contribs), Piotrek21511 (talk · contribs), Andal 93 (talk · contribs), Amos1337 (talk · contribs), Matteo18pl (talk · contribs), Mto9du (talk · contribs), Vildecik (talk · contribs), Tankista94 (talk · contribs), Pawel Ruminkiewicz (talk · contribs), 0john0 (talk · contribs), Maskawq (talk · contribs), Frihu (talk · contribs), Russen2010 (talk · contribs), Klabon (talk · contribs), Guren II Mk (talk · contribs), Kojot1240 (talk · contribs), WyklutyZ2Jaj (talk · contribs), Senseymobile (talk · contribs), Qwerty1410 (talk · contribs), Kazyuki (talk · contribs), Tomas933 (talk · contribs), Damian1271 (talk · contribs), Pyra116 (talk · contribs), Clichy22 (talk · contribs), Ttwe125 (talk · contribs), Nightcreature18 (talk · contribs) - he seems to create one stubby article about monuments in Września County region, than abandon the account. S/he even can create more than one account to edit a single article (consider Monument of Sokołowo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), or even create an account for a single minor edit (as is the case with the last two accounts listed here). The problem is that the articles are usually unreferenced, merit the {{rough translation}} notice, and the user is not responding to the messages on his/her talk page which they abandon. This article was created with a number of warning tags (after prior deletion?). Perhaps if we leave a mass message on all his/her accounts it will draw his/her attention? And someone may want to categorize those accounts under some sock category for an unknown single user, I guess. I am also pinging Azymut (talk · contribs) who edited and copyedited many of articles by that editor, perhaps s/he can shed some light on what's going on here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Some group of students? Each assigned one article by their teacher (perhaps Azymut)? Fram (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure review: Mr Whoppit

The consensus is to Endorse the close that was made at Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment as the consensus points out the process of the closing the RFC was followed. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I have started a closure review for Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment.

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 10#Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment, Armbrust (talk · contribs) and Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) disagreed over Armbrust's close.

I have opened this discussion to allow uninvolved editors to review the close.

Discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 10#Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment (initiated 5 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote: Should the article contain the statement "Gar Wood and his brother George also kept teddy bears tied to their raceboat engines or is it inappropriate for this article because it is not related to the subject of this article "Mr. Whoppit"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)  Done Armbrust The Homunculus 10:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Re-opening this and requesting another opinion. I see the comments on talk: as being 2:2 either way, with no clear consensus. I do not see Armbrust's claim of 3:1 here. Nor do I appreciate his undiscussed reversion and blanking of expanded content on the same theme, nor his reversion and blanking of my comments on talk: (I don't know what part of WP:TPO that falls under). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC) It's actually 2:1, Trevj only said that it should be covered, but not that in this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral. Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) wrote (truncated quote; click link to see entire post):

  This article has already been attacked for the childish and non-serious nature of teddy bears. This section gives reasonable context that other boat racers (and Gar Wood was one of the most celebrated) would also be seen and photographed with their "toy bears".

  Trevj (talk · contribs) wrote (truncated quote; click link to see entire post): "The content seems encyclopedic enough, with the question really being where it should be hosted. Maybe it's WP:UNDUE here and would be more appropriate at Gar Wood.

  TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) wrote (truncated quote; click link to see entire post):

  The statement is irrelevant to the subject of this article. The subject of this article is a teddy bear mascot called "Mr. Whoppit". The Woods bears appear to be named "Teddy" and "Bruin" [47] There is no indication "whoppit" or "woppit". There is no indication that the teddy bear mascots kept by other racers are in any way related to the subject of this article other than WP:OR.

  NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) wrote (truncated quote; click link to see entire post):

  Omit ... This article is about one bear. Other bears are off-topic. They belong in a "see also" section if they're notable enough to have their own articles.

  The key question here: Does a sentence to contextualize how other teddy bear mascots existed during mascot Mr Whoppit's time constitute undue weight or a coatrack?

  As the opener of this closure review and the editor who requested closure at WP:ANRFC, I will remain neutral.

  Cunard (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• To prevent premature archiving, I have posted timestamps for the next 10 days in the collapsed post. Feel free to remove them when the discussion has run to completion. Template:Do not archive until does not work with ClueBot III (talk · contribs) as I discovered here.

  Timestamps for the next 10 days to prevent premature archiving
  23:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  Cunard (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Break

Endorse close as is. Rfc is an important protocol in that it provides an "out" to situations where good faith editors are simply deadlocked on their viewpoints. It is important not so much as it provides the "right" or "ideal" answer but that it provides an answer and allows the community to proceed to more useful activities than remaining stuck on a particular issue. Due to the frequently unstructured nature of Rfc discussions, it can be a tedious, time consuming task and, given the current and perennial backlog of Rfc's requiring closure (see the top o' the page), deference should be given to closers: making closing an rfc even more of a hassle is likely to reduce the number of editors willing to close rfcs to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Therefore, an Rfc should only be overturned if one or more the following criteria are met:

• There is evidence of significant prior editorial involvement in the discussion by the closer.
• The close egregiously does not reflect the consensus of the discussion.
• The issue involves WP:BLP or other content of majorly significant importance.

NE Ent 10:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that uninvolved closers should be given deference.

WP:DRVPURPOSE says "Deletion Review may be used if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". Extrapolating this to RfC closes, RfC closure reviews likewise should be permitted "if someone believes the closer of an RfC interpreted the consensus incorrectly".

Andy disagreed with the close, so I brought it here so the community could review it. Paraphrasing S Marshall (talk · contribs) here: "the principle that FairProcess demands that good faith editors have some effective recourse against" RfC closes they disagree with.

I hope this closure review will not cause hassle to Armbrust. I intended it to resolve the disagreement over the close's correctness by seeking feedback from other community members. Cunard (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that in principle it should be possible to review RfC closes if good faith editors are concerned about them. I would not want RfC reviews to become commonplace, and I'm not sure whether the Administrators' Noticeboard is the correct place to do that.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I largely agree with NE Ent's philosophy on this. I also think there should be an appeals process and that Cunard bringing it here for Andy was reasonable. As to the issue at hand, I only spent 4-5 minutes looking at it, but I'm not seeing any problem that is significant enough to require overturning--I think I'd have closed it with the same result. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close. It was closed after long waiting. No further arguments arrived. Closer's judgement of the discussion was correct. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Although with the small number of participants it was never going to be the strongest consensus I feel that there is a rough consensus there to exclude the information as the arguments to exclude are stronger, especially the WP:SYNTH argument. Dpmuk (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I disagree with the conclusion, but a resolution is better than "no consensus". Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Restore content The sourced content here is relevant to the scope of the article and was no so bulky as to fail WP:UNDUE. We're talking about two sentences here. As they're not in the article at present (and I'd no doubt be threatened again with a block for restoring them), I would ask if those commenting here have actually read them? The point of the additional content is that the article is primarily about the crossover between a sportsman and a mascot, this additional content introduced further context in that two other notable boat racers also had their own similar mascots.

My main concern for the close was the way in which Armbrust went about it. I expanded the content (two other contextual sportsmen rather than one) to address the fair comment that one other was merely coincidence. Armbrust then reverted that, without discussion, and also reverted my comments on the article talk: page. I see reversion of GF talk as something that should almost never be justified. Why was it reverted? Why is Armbrust treating me as a vandal?

This article has also suffered badly from recent trolling. Red Pen is known for deleting anything on the slightest policy-unsupported whim, but there is also sufficient past disagreement between the two of us that any appearance by him on an article where I'm pretty much the only editor cannot credibly be seen as mere happenstance and was instead a deliberate choice by him to start blanking an article by one of his critics. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's two sentences or two hundred, WP:UNDUE is irrelevant if the actual weight is zero. --Calton | Talk 21:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse closure No flaws I can see in the process -- other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- and the correct decision to boot. --Calton | Talk 21:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Lifting of Topic Ban

Here, in August 2012, I was topic banned from The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) topics. And here, in November 2012, I was blocked for one month for WP:DE and violating topic ban. I would like to ask that the topic ban be lifted.

My disruptive behavior leading to the topic ban was due to the fact I was a newbie at that time, and I made several mistakes because I was overly-enthusiastic, clueless newbie. These included e.g.: SPA, OWNERSHIP of the TZM article, inconsistency in assuming good faith, writing too many walls of text, IDHT, etc. More generally, I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's philosophy, culture, rules, policies, guidelines, and user-contributed essays, and unfamiliar with the importance of consensus and the theory and practice of the consensus-building process and closely-related issues. I was clueless, and myopic in my view of Wikipedia.

I'm now much more familiar with how Wikipedia works, and I understand in retrospect that my behavior prior to the topic ban was disruptive and the topic ban and the one-month block were justified, productive and beneficial for the encyclopedia. (Especially - but not exclusively - in the 3-4 weeks immediately preceding my topic ban, my behavior was increasingly disruptive to the project and my contributions on the TZM article and article talk page were more distracting to everyone - including myself - than helping to improve the article's content.) I don't blame anyone, I acknowledge I alone am responsible for all my actions, and I take full responsibility for my disruptive actions that resulted in my topic ban and one-month block.

I believe my record from the expiration of the block in December 2012 to date (almost 16 months, if I'm counting correctly) shows that my contributions to article development efforts and discussions are aligned with Wikipedia's culture and Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines. I have edited trouble free after the block, and I have contributed over a wide range of topic areas, without any of the problems that led to my topic ban. I have been receptive to feedback on my behavior and my contributions, and have edited constructively, acknowledging my mistakes. I have asked other editors to offer their perspectives to assist my article development and talk-page discussion efforts on issues in which my experience was somewhat lacking (e.g. Whitelist issues, questions regarding proposed sanctions on an editor I reported for vandalism, etc), and I am comfortable contacting more experienced WP editors to consult over questions/ issues/ challenges I may be facing.

Having contributed significantly to the development of the TZM article (from a stub) prior to the ban, my intention is to offer some perspectives to contribute to the conversations on the article talk page, to help move the discussions forward in the direction of some form of consensus, based on my intimate familiarity with all the secondary and primary references cited in the article, and my knowledge of the history of the article development efforts. My intention is also to resume TZM-related content creation based on citations from reliable sources, which is always what I most enjoy in Wikipedia.

IjonTichy (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to suggest that given the broad scope of the ban, IjonTichy might well be seen as violating it again by posting here, rather than contacting the admin who enacted it, as was clearly laid out when the ban was enacted [48]. As for the suggestion that IjonTichy contributed anything to the development of our problematic article on The Zeitgeist Movement but tendentious editing, interminable walls of text, and a level of disruption rarely surpassed on Wikipedia, I think the evidence is clear enough. But don't take my word for it, see the ANI discussion which led to the ban [49], and note the unanimous support it received. Given the problems we are currently having with TZM supporters trying to remove all negative content from the article, and turn it into promotional puffery, I have to suggest that the last thing we need is more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

no opinion as to the lifting of the ban, but not an infraction to ask about the lifting of the ban from the community/admins. Thats just rubbing salt into the wound, and clearly allows per WP:BANEX. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, WP:BANEX starts by saying "Unless stated otherwise...". I'd say that the ban notification "stated otherwise" clearly enough - but whatever, the main point is that IjonTichy was unanimously blocked for promotional editing (of the most interminably disruptive kind) in an article which he wishes to return to - and to which he still seems to think he made some sort of positive contribution. His evident failure to understand what 'contributing significantly' to the article would entail (or rather, wouldn't entail) suggests to me that he has failed to understand why he was blocked in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No comment on whether we should lift or retain the ban, but this is not a violation. We need to interpret the BANEX thing very strictly — only in the most egregious cases should a ban appeal be prohibited, and in those cases, it absolutely must be stated specifically "You may not appeal the ban". Locking the door and throwing away the key is occasionally necessarily, but we must never do it without explicit consensus to do it and an explicit statement to the user in question. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Stalking. Can the editor in question not be put on a 1 year probation, with the provisio that just 1 violation means curtains for keeps? Just a thought. At least it is an apparently sincere statement. The best appeal I have seen actually, in terms of regaining at least some clue. I'm not familiar with the case though. Irondome (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we impose that kind of restriction sometimes. Still no comment on whether or not that would be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks but no thanks. I don't have any objection to asking for a review of the ban just this once, but the request makes it pretty clear that the problem has not gone away and any further editing is likely to result in a swift reinstatement, with, no doubt, attendant drama. The Zeitgeist thing is pretty much dead anyway, there's no pressing need to bring in obvious partisans. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• User:IjonTichyIjonTichy would you a accept a 1 strike and an indeffed for any infractions for a period of 1 year as an acceptable condition? Irondome (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• As I read it, the penalty for ban-breaking would be an indefinite block for a year — please clarify so I can understand your actual meaning. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. I just proposed that IjTIjT be allowed to edit the ZG article but 1 infraction in a probationary period of 1 yr would mean an subject indeff, with no appeal. If the user is that committed to the article, then they can be gardener, making sure of its stability, helping to protect against vandalism, etc. I am also hearing colleague Guy (Help!) s comments below. Just thinking it would be kinder to give IjTIjT a quick decision. I of course defer to wiser heads on this. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is just a bad idea. We already know what the user's personal knowledge etc. means in context, it means a lot of original research and special pleading. There's no obvious pressing need for the input of someone with a history like IjonTichy's. All we're doing is imposing another period where independent editors have to watch every edit, and it's very likely that a block will be required sooner rather than later, with the additional drama that will involve. I don't think it is kind to hold out the hope that this user can return to a subject on which their input has in the past been judged profoundly unhelpful, on the basis that they think their input will suddenly be helpful instead. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• No. The topic ban was established for a good reason, and there would need to be a good reason to remove it. Would anyone wanting to make an offer please first examine the topic and the previous discussions, then indicate how promotion of The Zeitgeist Movement would benefit the encyclopedia. The most worrying part of issues like this is that people will learn how to push their favored positions without crossing obvious lines that would lead to sanctions. How much work should be dropped on the the couple of volunteers willing to monitor the relevant articles? The above proposal of "1 infraction in a probationary period of 1 yr would mean an subject indeff, with no appeal" is not possible as there is never "no appeal", and there is no definition of "infraction"—perpetual boosterism leads to puffery, but no single diff can be shown as an "infraction". Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we G6 failed AfCs re-created as articles?

As a question of principle, is it reasonable to speedy delete under WP:G6 ("technical deletions/uncontroversial maintenance") an article that's been failed at Articles for creation which has later been identically created as a mainspace article by the original author(s)? A test case is Amir Malik and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amir Malik.  —SMALLJIM  18:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply choose the criteria that caused it to fail AFC in the first place. –xeno^talk 18:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, but different criteria tend to be applied in the two places. What would we use in this case - A7, G11? There is some credible claim to notability, and it's not exclusively promotional. Yet if we allow it to stand it shows that anyone not getting the result they wanted could easily bypass the AfC process, unless/until a full AfD is started. Hence the question of principle. (I see Jinian has since deleted it under A7/G6 - not sure if they saw this.)  —SMALLJIM  20:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I did see this. I had seen this page before and believe that A7 applied. I used G6 as an alternate, meaning to not make a point about this discussion. Jinian (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So, the AFC was blanked by the creator - very obvious CSD criteria, although it was likely rejected at some point as non-notable. The article was A7 - again, very obvious. DP 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, maybe, but I'm looking for comments on the principle of using G6.  —SMALLJIM  21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no. Just because something failed at AFC doesn't mean it shouldn't be created. AFC is an optional process and folks shouldn't be forced to follow that path once they start on it. It's really likely that the article will get deleted (by A7, AfD, or whatever else) but you'd need to propose a new criteria (or get consensus on expanding it as you describe). Hobit (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this situation would not count as G6-able. Nothing technical or uncontroversial about it DP 22:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• The more-or-less accepted criterion for passing AfC is that it would probably stand at AfD. Probably does not mean certainly, and in all cases AfD is the undefintive way of dealing with it. (If an really unacceptable draft that shows no possibilities of improvement is in AfC or elsewhere and it doesn't fit in the General categories of speedy, then MfD if it's worth the trouble. My own feeling is we should be using that more, not necessairly waiting the 6 months till G13 is applicable. )

It's not clear whether A7 ever applies to an accepted draft, on the grounds that someone other than the creator thought it was at least plausible, and the same argument could be made for PROD. Myself, I think some cases are clear enough that I've been using both routes from time to time when I feel reasonably sure. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. If the consensus view is that G6 doesn't apply, that's OK: it was just an idea worth testing. The principle that AfC holds a candidate article to higher standards than the bare CSD criteria, to minimise the possibility of deletion once it has been approved, is sensible of course. But it does leave a large grey area containing those candidates that have failed AfC but which would actually survive as articles in mainspace. This is not only unfair to the good-faith editor (who after doing his/her best accepts the refusal); it also leaves a loophole that can be exploited by those who just ignore the refusal and copy their efforts into mainspace, some of which won't meet WP:N etc and will avoid NPP scrutiny. Is there scope for a bot to flag these for extra scrutiny? By the way the Malik article was re-created again and I deleted it as A7, per the consensus here. I've salted it now.  —SMALLJIM  11:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Smalljim, you can still get rid of an old AFC easily: just redirect it to the article to which it was eventually converted. No need to delete it. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a useful tip, Nyttend, though it's not really what I was asking about. I think I'm done with this one now – thanks for all the feedback, including Guy below.  —SMALLJIM  20:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I do tend to make creative use of CSD for obviously useless AFCs for living people, rather than go through the rather brutal process of debating whether X is actually notable, a term of art we know well and good causes serious offence to those deemed not to make the grade. But it is something I do selectively, and only where I know the failed article is causing an actual (usually non-Wikipedia) problem. AFC should not be indexed, after all. I'd really hope that an obvious A7 would never be copied to mainspace by the AFC team - G11's, however, do slip by, and that's hardly a surprise given the volume of work. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My 2 Pence: I prefer to hold AFC submissions to a higher standard for the simple reason that if AFC doesn't keep most of the junk from entering mainspace, then the next in line would be NPP or AFD. When I catch a AFC submission that has been copy/pasted from AFC space (i.e. not promoted by an editor in good standing) I redirect the applicable AFC page to the mainspace page, strip the mainspace article of any AFC identifiers it had (since it was never promoted by us), and wash my hands of it. Recalling a gaming of the intentions of the deletion process and AFC by a certain administrator by accepting patently incorrect submissions only to turn around and immediately speedy them because they were now in articlespace and articlespace has higher standards than what is permissiable in AFC space, I see these rogue editors self promotions as their rejection of the umbrella of AFC in favor of any random tag bomber or deletion junkie to come in and rip the submission apart. Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Robsinden actions

Robsinden keeps reverting people at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates in the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL section despite many disagreeing opinions and then changing templates based on his view of what WP:BIDIRECTIONAL means. He has also been misreading consensus in discussions and making largescale changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment to add to Tony's comment, I will note the it was also Robsinden who made the edit that created WP:BIDIRECTIONAL in it present form (and the all caps shortcut also) and has since been enforcing what appears to be a rule he created. He's also been prone to being rather nasty about it as well. This has been going on for a couple months now. I tangled with him on this thread and here, and I think, in a couple other locations, all on the same general topic. Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem here is that some editors don't seem to understand what navboxes are actually for, namely navigation between related articles, or what "bidirectional" means, and the explanation of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL was lacking (maybe through oversight), in that it only described the process in one direction, thus only describing "monodirectionality". Some editors seem to want to use navboxes as a substitute for lists or articles, promoting their "monodirectional" agenda, which is against the spirit and functionality of navboxes, and against the spirit of "bidirectional" as half-described at the guideline. The point being if you click on a link in a navbox, you would expect to see the same navbox transcluded at the target. There is support for the clarification at the talk page, but opposing editors are only now weighing in, nearly a year after the discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Rob, I have given you plenty of examples of why BIDIRECTIONAL is not really a rule that should be created. Templates that include historical characters such as {{Henriad}} or {{The Last of the Mohicans}} should not be bidirectional in the sense you discuss. I.e., a fictional character like a King of England should not include every template that includes him as a character.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This is start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, not "open a thread on WP:AN" material. NE Ent 10:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent did you write what you meant. It seems ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Request - can an uninvolved administrator please help sort out this situation by taking a look, deciding to move to AN/I, or whatever, because I've had enough! It began weeks when TonyTheTiger opened this conversation on Talk: Ernest Hemingway, more here on my own talkpage, then he moved to Talk:The Sun Also Rises by opening this conversation. We apparently had consensus here, but then he went back to Talk:Ernest Hemingway to this thread. In the meantime, he also opened a thread on Robsinden's page here. There's been edit warring here, here, here - (I might have missed a few - I'm really tired of this). And of course, he opened this AN thread too. Anyway, thanks to whomever can help. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that some editors don't seem to understand what wikipedia is actually for Rob. I think it's about time Rob was topic banned from templates.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rob's actions have been problematic, but to my mind Tony's have been worse - some of his comments at Talk:Ernest Hemingway in particular have been such that, were I not involved in the original discussion, I would have blocked him. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for admin attention on ITN

If an admin could please take a moment to assess the consensus on this "In The News" nomination from a few days ago I would appreciate it. For whatever reason (possibly the huge discussion on items nominated shortly after it), the ITN regulars have overlooked it. No special knowledge of ITN is required to assess consensus. If consensus is found in favor of posting, here are the technical instructions. If not, just leave a note saying consensus was not reached/mor eopinions are needed to decide. We could definitely use more admin involvement at ITN, so here a good chance to get involved.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man took care of that one, but this one on Windows XP still needs assessed. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Said bin Taimur's bed

The only non-mirror reference of his habit keeping his gold under his bed, was this, http://www.geocurrents.info/place/southwest-asia-and-north-africa/oman-a-land-apart which was most likely extracted from Wikipedia. Perhaps a hoax?--The Theosophist (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference was added by an IP who was warned twice for unconstructive editing.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What do we do with unsourced statements that are challenged? All together now: we remove them pending a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Filter?

This user and his or her socks,

• Naghmehetaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Naghmehetaati 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Naghmehetaati 13 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Naghmehetaati 14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Naghmehetaati12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

does nothing but post long comments in Persian to Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Hassan Rouhani. No response to talk page inquiries. All except N14 are blocked at this point by Bishonen, but would it be possible for a filter to catch large amounts of Persian posted to article (and file) talk pages? The alternative is to long-term semi-protect these two talk pages, since N needs to create new socks in order to post.

BMK (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a filter necessary — it's rather easy to track, rather easy to revert, and rather easy to block. This isn't the kind of thing that sneaks past people, it's not disrupting articles, and the disruption it does on talk pages is easy to remove (just hit Undo if someone else has edited; you don't have to remove it carefully from a page), so the filter I think would be a lot of work for virtually no benefit. If you notice another sock come along, be sure to check Special:Listusers to find any additional usernames that have been registered. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I just thought it might be useful per WP:BEANS. BMK (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne

Can we have some comments at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Original Stories from Real Life? One of Adrianne Wadewitz's articles is going to run on the main page as "Today's featured article" on either the 14th or 26th, but we have 23 hours to find a consensus date. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Albania

A strange dispute has been ongoing in Albania page (you can see the talk page, where a number of editors, just refuse to use CIA Factbook data (based on the official Albanian census) for the ethnic data in the country. They still, keep by reverting, OLD data, from sources as back as 1991. As this is a case of edit-warring and refusal to discuss the sources themselves, by the editors, I hereby, request from administrators, to intervene, otherwise, it would be an endless anomaly. Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Apart from a widely established consensus, prior to Balkanian's intervention in the article, a dirsuptive instant reverting obsession apears to be obvious. All sides need to cool down and perform edits after a discussion takes place and I've asked for this article to be semied. Not to mention that Balkanian is also into a wide scale disruptive convassing campaign [[50]][[51]][[52]][[53]][[54]][[55]], calling his co-nationals for some kind of wikiwar.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, where users that always use to make anti-Albanian edits (either Greeks or Serbians) have decided, on their own mind, that census results in Albania, are not RS, because a minor organization refutes them, while those census results are overwhelmingly accepted by international organization, as well as foreign governments, like CIA Factbook. As a clear case of ethnic-based edit-waring, it is a nonsense, to try to find consensus. This is the basic problem of wikipedia, and if administrators that have no connection to this issue, do not take part, it would be just a nonsense discussion. I am reverting the results. If anyone bothers to take part or to ban me, is welcomed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Askahrc topic ban violation

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.

---

Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In a very blatant attempt to end-run round that, he has opened an arbitration case naming individuals with whom he was in dispute there months ago. This is, pretty obviously, vexatious.

He has also taken to using an alias, "The Cap'n", and notified himnself on his own talk using the alias. WTF?

Vzaak's statement is compelling reading. This user is obsessed with the Sheldrake article, and will not drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: Can you give me a link to the TBAN please, I can't find it on WP:EDR or WP:ARBPSEUDO. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair question, it was Barney the barney barney who said he was TBANned, and his lack of present input supports that, but I am having trouble tracking it down myself now you ask. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of factual corrections here, please bear with me. First off, I'd ask Guy and barney_the_barney_barney to stop spreading the falsehood that I have a topic ban. Please research every procedural that I've been involved in. I do not have any topic bans on any subject, and I'm not trying to circumvent any admin. I've been transparent and respectful about the actions I've taken. Second, I've been signing my name as The Cap'n (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC) for several years now, that's nothing new, while I put a notice on my Talk for ease of record-keeping once this is over.

Finally, I'm not "obsessed" with the Sheldrake article. I haven't edited there in months, made a grand total of less than 20 edits and don't endorse MR, Fringe topics or Sheldrake. What I brought up in my AR is nothing to do with WP:FRINGE, but rather that every time I've complained about incivility or hostile editor behavior since I contributed to Sheldrake, the response (paradoxically) has been to accost me with profanity and attempts to block me.

I have no issues with Guy, we've only interacted a few times, but please don't accuse me of transgressions I have not committed; that's exactly what this AR is about in the first place. I've tried talk pages, noticeboards, avoiding any Fringe article and finally AE's to get these editors to stop harassing me, but it hasn't worked. I'd find it the height of irony to block me for filing an AR stating that I've been inappropriately threatened with blocking. The Cap'n (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest that since there isn't a TBAN (the only sanctions I found were the ones I placed after the SPI, see WP:ARBPSEUDO) this discussion would be best placed at WP:A/R/C within the case request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. A TBAN is amply justified, IMO. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would a topic ban be justified when the editor hasn't edited the article in months and "made a grand total of less than 20 edits"? Seems like overkill to me and primarily meant to stop Askahrc from filing AR requests regarding user conduct surrounding this article. If there are problems with civility (and I believe there are), the editor bringing attention to it shouldn't be penalized. And, yes, I'll go check out WP:A/R/C. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the history on their talk page. Long, rambling conspiracist fictions featuring named editors and referencing the Sheldrake article/. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Heartbleed bug

Has there been any guidance from the Foundation on passwords (both for editors with special privileges and those without)? See this CNN article. I saw this comment at WP:VPT but with no link: "Perhaps an explanation is found on Commons: Wikimedia Foundation servers have been updated since a vulnerability was discovered in the OpenSSL software. As a precaution, all Commons users were forced to log in again using new, secure version of the software. While there is no evidence of any breach of servers or loss of user data, the Wikimedia Foundation recommends that all users change their passwords to ensure maximum safety of their accounts."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple, don't change your passwords until you're absolutely certain the server you're on has uploaded the OpenSSL patch to close the Heartbleed security hole. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I was wondering if they were going to offer guidance. I changed my password this morning, expect to change again tomorrow. Anyone with advanced bit should change their password, if not everyone, simply because we really have no idea if anything was compromised or not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Standard sysadmin statement: you don't use the same password on multiple websites, do you people? KeePass is your friend... Guy (Help!) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a VPT thread,here the servers are patched and certificates have been replaced, all users are advised to change their passwords as a precautionary measure, but there's no confirmation of any actual breach. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cindamuse is gone; please protect her user page

I'm sorry to inform Cindamuse has passed away yesterday morning, in Berlin, during the Wikimedia Conference. Please protect her page, per policy. Thanks. Ijon (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Salvio full protected the user page, talk page is open for condolences. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvio, and thanks for the response, Dennis Brown. Ijon (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is bad to see any fellow editor pass on, but I really liked Cindy and she was a huge asset here. In passing, she definitely left a void. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We also need a crat to remove the admin rights. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

'Crats hang at WP:BN. NE Ent 19:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap! That is terrible, terrible news. I am shocked to hear this. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• In order to maintain the user page as it was at that time of her passing:
  • could a sysop update the {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} template to {{User wikipedia/Former administrator|adjective=is a}}?
  • If someone is wiki savvy enough to set the count on the {{User Wikipedian for|... template to the time of her death, that would be good. (I'm going real life for a bit, otherwise I'd be more specific) NE Ent 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The "adjective=is a" doesn't help: the result is This user is a administrator on the English Wikipedia (verify). Having "adjective=is an" wouldn't be good, since it would make it seem that she was still an admin: we don't want the userpage suggesting that people can ask her for administrative help. I can't see anything in the {{User Wikipedian for}} documentation that would permit the counter to remain the same from day to day, instead of increasing. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The This Wikipedian is deceased. Her user page is preserved here in her memory. makes it clear she's not going to provide anyone help. "preserved" implies we leave the page in it's last form (i.e. present tense) -- she's not in the list of administrators nor the admin category, so editors seeking admin help are not going to be directed to her page. NE Ent 01:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume the subst: syntax can be used to capture a snapshot of the userbox? isaacl (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bug in delete/undelete

Resolved

 – Incorrect venue. Graham87 08:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• In this edit of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests I found a request to move Jorhat, Assam, India to Jorhat. It proved to need history-merge, to correct a cut-and-paste followed by many edits and then a cut-and-paste back. So I history-merged it. But first I had to lose from Jorhat, Assam, India 5 redirect edits made while the text was in Jorhat, to avoid WP:Parallel histories. Jorhat, Assam, India had about 1800 edits. This involved the usual long-way-round process of deleting all edits, then undeleting all those edits except the 5 redirects, wasting my time and Wikipedia's server's time. And also, when I tried to undelete, up instead came the "search for text" screen, at least 3 times. To avoid that bug I had to undelete Jorhat, Assam, India in several portions, as seen in Jorhat, Assam, India's actions log (at this link). PLEASE can we avoid this long-way-round process and have a way to plainly directly delete a few edits selectively? (This is not the "hide some edits" feature.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: This is not the right place for this request. The fact that it's impossible to undelete more than a thousand revisions at once is tracked as bug 43911, and the aborted revision move feature is tracked as bug 21312. Also see this discussion on the technical village pump (which you initiated) and this Signpost story. Graham87 08:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please help

I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 6#WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities .26 Neighbourhoods not realizing that it required a protected edit. Administrative or template editor assistance is requested to revert [56] so as to recategorize the relevant talk pages. Also, Template:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods, which is move protected, should be moved to Template:WikiProject Saskatchewan communities and neighbourhoods. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've granted you template editor.--v/r - TP 00:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tiresome hopping IP

• 142.136.84.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Road Runner Northridge, CA)
• 142.136.131.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Road Runner Northridge, CA)
• 64.134.235.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AT&T Los Angeles, CA)
• 63.92.241.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Verizon, Corporate, Apple, Granada Hills, CA)
• 64.134.233.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AT&T, Los Angeles, CA)

This user vandalizes the school information for judges and lawyers, mostly in the infobox but sometimes also in the body to make it "consistent". Like many disruptive socks, some of his edits are not vandalism. Also, the first one, whom I just blocked today, branched out into other areas. After I block them (each for a month, although one I reblocked), I rollback all of their current edits without regard to the quality of the edit (already exhausting enough).

I'm not sure what to do. I can't see any range block being appropriate here because I believe it would sweep too many addresses into the ranges. Perhaps an edit filter that incorporates both the kind of edit and the different ranges. Does anyone have any ideas? Should I be blocking them for longer than a month when they pop up?

(I'm not notifying any of the IPs about this topic.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Road Runner addresses are "sticky", i.e. semi-static, so those blocks should be sufficient until they are able to coax another IP address out of Time Warner Cable. The AT&T address is likely a WiFi hotspot at Starbucks, McDonald's, or some other establishment, and the Verizon/Apple address is probably an Apple Store, so those blocks are fine, but the vandal probably won't have much trouble circumventing them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DoRD. I added another one to the list above whom I just blocked, this time for two months, a lot of good it'll do me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian election articles - eyes needed, please

I've been contacted by The Times of India, which I believe is the world's largest English-language newspaper by circulation. They are going to be running a story about how editors involved with the Narendra Modi article are handling the extra attention caused by the ongoing elections in India. Perhaps stupidly, I've pointed out that the issues at the Modi article are no different in principle to, say, the issues at the Arvind Kejriwal article, Kejriwal being one of his opponents in the elections. They've asked if they can quote things that I've said and I get the impression that the story may be published in the next 24 hours or so.

I think it pretty inevitable that it will generate more POV and otherwise poor edits etc, so I'd appreciate some more eyes on at least those two articles (and Aam Aadmi Party, which I also mentioned) for a brief period. They're all semi-protected at the moment anyway but I predict some extra hassle. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I came across a beautyful article this morning that was quickly blpproded by someone. So I decided to find some sources. Corruption and allegations. Then I thought the subject would rather have the article go quietly rather then have that in there. Agathoclea (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed on original research noticeboard

Can we please get some more eyes on the original research noticeboard about the Bundy standoff page. [57] There is some persistent attempts to add original research and outright crazy things to that page. 174.147.113.160 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I made an unusual block: block review of Cal Bare

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

---

I just made an unusual block that some could view as involved, so I'm reflexing it here for review. As some may know, I'm currently Wikipedian-in-Residence at UC Berkeley - part of what that involves is handling a couple education program classes. My in-person interactions with them are overwhelmingly things I would view as administrative in nature - I teach them about the technical and social aspects of Wikipedia, our policies, etc. Generally speaking, I don't intervene very much in content, except to point out style and sourcing issues, provide suggestions on tone, and stuff like that. With this particular student, they'd listened to a half hour lecture I gave about the history of Wikipedia in a room full of about a hundred students, attended about two hours of additional training with me. with about fifteen other students, and had some email correspondence about what plagiarism is and what excessively close paraphrasing is.

Some time ago, the student's initial sandbox came up as a copyright violation; I nuked it, but didn't take further action besides a discussion with them about what's okay and what isn't okay. Maggie beat me to finding some pretty severe copyright issues in their current sandbox - this time I not only nuked it, but indeffed the student. My intention is for the block to last at least until the student can sit down in person with me and his GSI (his TA) about the past and present problems and then go from there. I think this is a reasonable approach - one of the frequent complaints about the education program is the workload it leaves on community members who aren't participants in it, and since my contact has been primarily administrative (though in the real world,) I think I'm on the okay side of involved. However, I'm sure others have different viewpoints, so I figured I'd bring up my block for discussion pre-emptively. I hope this is not a recurring issue, but discussion here will also help guide my approach to any future student issues in classes I'm WiR/ambassadoring for.

I'd basically like to throw out two questions: is this a kosher block w/r/t involved, and is it a kosher block w/r/t me indeffing someone for something that wouldn't normally get them indeffed and then setting an unblock condition that is definitely not a common unblock condition? As a note, I've also taken the unusual step of not notifying the user I'm talking about, and would appreciate if others didn't as well - it's an abnormal situation, and I don't think he needs to comment on the Wikipedia policy aspect of it. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that it meets the spirit of WP:INVOLVED in the sense that you are not in a content dispute with the editor, and the block is part of a continuing process of monitoring and working with them, which admins are expected to do. That is, I believe you are fine. Per WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Your work with this person has been purely administrative (albeit, with some in-person "administration" going on) and you clearly state that you intend to continue to work with them to educate them in person with Wikipedia policies. I think you've worked well within the spirit of Wikipedia policies here. --Jayron32 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the block. I have a different concern which I'd ask Kevin Gorman to e-mail me privately to discuss. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like a cryptic comment from an arb to make a tuesday morning vaguely scary :) you have mail NYb. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing scary intended or implied. I think this thread can close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban request

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

---

Per this thread, I formally request an indefinite interaction ban with Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs). He is a serial violator of WP:CIV and WP:NPA with a nasty habit of dragging his "enemies'" names into disputes that have nothing to do with them. We seem to already have an informal understanding that we will not interact; I want this understanding to be formalised so that if this editor continues to snipe at me he will face sanctions. Thanks. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"One-way" interaction bans do not happen. You do understand that you would never be able to mention him as well, and that you would face the same sanctions as he would were an IBAN enacted? Doc talk 11:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One-way interaction bans do happen actually, but that's not what I'm requesting. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

They don't happen legitimately. Editor X is interchangeable with editor Y. The current example at WP:IBAN is confusing and needs to be clarified. If two editors need to be separated with an IBAN, neither should interact with the other. No one is at more fault than the other. If it's a simple harassment issue, one would simply be blocked for harassment of the other. IBANS are mutual. Doc talk 12:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So what's this note about then? No matter, two way is fine with me, as long as it gets him out of my wiki life forever. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes: I see the change here. It never used to say that. The level of consensus at the talk page for this policy change based on the discussion is pathetic. It fell through the cracks and no one saw it. BRD. Doc talk 13:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, one-way IBAN's are possible. However, it would need to be shown clearly through diff's that this is preventing current problems. To say "X has a habit of doing something" is not helpful. We need to see recent, serious, and significant evidence to implement any type of IBAN. Note, this could also expand into a discussion of a 2-way IBAN if evidence leads that way ES&L 13:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You want evidence that there is a problem? How about this diff from earlier today where Ihardlythinkso attacks The Bushranger and also throws in a back-handed insult of Dennis Brown. Northern Antarctica ₵ 14:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What does that diff have to with IBANs between Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne???? ES&L 14:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. Rather, it demonstrates that this is more of a widespread issue and that IHTS still does not understand that this type of behavior is not acceptable. Northern Antarctica ₵ 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we all agree it's not acceptable behaviour, and that's RFC/U material. This discussion is specifically related to an interaction ban between two people. Evidence needs to be shown that the one person is requiring immediate protection from the other party. Overall behaviour, while fine as a level-set and RFC/U, do not establish immediate need ES&L 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Northern Antarctica ₵ 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK it was tedious to collect all these diffs but this is more than enough to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour. [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] Every single one of these was unprovoked. These were arguments/discussions with other editors, some relatively civil, most not, but the common factor is that I had nothing to do with any of them. Nor did the other editors he mentioned. Also, past experience has shown that Ihardlythinkso will not respect an informal request from another editor to cease interaction. For this reason, an admin directive to cease interaction with me is necessary. I'm not asking anything of him that I am not prepared to do myself, i.e. refrain from interacting, linking to his diffs or mentioning him directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN there is enough evidence to support this approach. I would also endorse a 24-hour block of IHTS for his attack on the Bushranger (diff above). This would hopefully discourage IHTS from making further disruptive attacks in the future and therefore would be preventative. Northern Antarctica ₵ 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Panda, the OP issued a pretty serious PA directed at me in the ANI, and when questioned about it, repeated it twice and even boasted why he was qualified to make such personal insult. An admin apparently blocked me for responding to the unprovoked PA, and when questioned at my Talk why he would overlook the unprovoked PA that baited my response, he in effect repeated the PA himself by calling it not a PA but "calling a spade a spade". It is not your responsibility, Panda, that these things occurred. But please tell me how am supposed to have any respect whatever for the goings on here, where a user feels complete freedom to throw vicious PAs around, and is protected in doing so by an admin (an admin!) who supports and repeats the PA???? p.s. The thing about Dennis Brown was a little joke (i.e. humor). Dennis has been nice to me recent. Northern apparently has no sense of humor, and is motivated to scrape up anything, anything whatever that does not even concern him, in bad faith, to attack with. This is obvious persistent hostility in action, not to mention misuse of process and people's time/attention. He even opened a bogus RFAR to attack with. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If the Dennis Brown remark was just a joke, great. I was more concerned by your unprovoked and unwarranted attack on the Bushranger, which you did not address above and which was certainly not a joke. Ironically, you were the one who was objecting to being the target of "mud-slinging". If your comments on The Bushranger aren't mud-slinging, I don't know what is. Please explain why anyone should have any respect whatever for the goings on here when you are permitted to insult editors during discussions that do not involve them. Northern Antarctica ₵ 18:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, instead of getting personal, perhaps you should looking in the mirror and ponder whether or not you're doing yourself any favors. One day, you're going to go one step too far and wind up indeffed. Your departure would a loss for Wikipedia, especially as far as our chess articles are concerned. Northern Antarctica ₵ 18:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've already explained myself, Northern. And I can't make any sense out of your other comments, to even respond. (And this isn't the venue for it anyway, I don't think. And why are you involved putting your nose in other editors' difficult or broken relationships, anyway? Why don't you mind your own business?! Already many editors that are your friends have tried to coax you out of drama-mills and go write sports articles. Why are you falling back, you are no doubt disappointing them.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My comments are not hard to understand. If you keep lashing out at others, you're going to wind up blocked. If that happens, our chess articles will suffer for it. Don't lecture me about involving myself in things that don't concern me. The issue of you attacking other users in discussions that they are not involved in is very much my business, mainly because you have done it to me before. Yes, this is the venue for discussing these things (whereas a third-party user talk page is certainly NOT the venue for your attack on The Bushranger). Northern Antarctica ₵ 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I don't owe you any explanations or even a discussion, Northern. But if I did entertain a discussion with you (and other users like you, e.g. SummerPhD) I would put the simple question to you how it is with all your professed interest in "civility" that you overlook and apparently excuse the vicious PA against me by the OP, which was repeated at least three times by him, and even attempted to justify it, as well as an admin saying it was justified. In what world do your civility principles become so blatantly hypocritical? (Please don't answer. I really do not want a discussion with you, and especially, not here. You ask me to "look in a mirror and ponder". Well, shoe's on the other foot -- big-time.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask questions if you don't want answers. Max Browne, as I recall, called you a 'classic narcissist'. Now, that wasn't very nice (and I never defended it, either). However, a narcissist is basically someone who is in love with himself. Considering that you almost never want to admit that you're wrong and that you fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, it's not hard to see why Max Browne said what he said. Maybe you should have given some thought as to what you do that causes someone to think of you as a narcissist (even if he shouldn't have said it).

Now, why did I overlook it? Perhaps it was because of all the nasty things I've seen you say about others, including me. In effect, you are a bully who can't handle it when other people don't play nice with him. You can dish it (and you do a lot of that), but you can't take it. Someone who dishes it out like you do can't expect a ton of sympathy from all the people they've alienated. Stop acting so superior ("I don't owe you any explanations or even a discussion...") and put your shoe back on.

Also, you just dragged SummerPhD's name into a discussion that does not involve him so you could use him as a negative comparison. What is it going to take for you to realize that you aren't supposed to do that? Northern Antarctica ₵ 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You just proved how hypocritical are your concepts re "civility" -- justifying a vicious PA the way you do based on "he deserved it" or "it's true" or whatever self-serving twisted logic that makes you think you make sense or are consistent. You have zero credibility with arguments like that. If I were you I'd be very embarrassed/ashamed, but you are not. End of dialogue. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If Max Browne's comment was a vicious PA, your comment on The Bushranger was a vicious PA. Deny it if you will, but it's the truth. At any rate, the dialogue between us does not end unless you are willing to avoid talking about me behind my back (i.e. things like what you just did with SummerPhD). If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. Further critical commentary on me made by you in a discussion I was not involved in will be considered harrassment. Northern Antarctica ₵ 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Ihardlythinkso Two things I'd like from you: 1) diff's pointing to what you considered to be PA's by MaxBrowne (after all, I forced him to go digging :-) ), and 2) a damned good explanation as to your pretty nasty personal attack on Bushranger, with a perhaps good reason why you shouldn't be blocked for that right now DP 19:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are no problem. (I don't know why you just don't go to the ANI however, and search on "MaxBrowne" and "narcissist"?) Regarding level of nasty, I don't understand how he as admin can reinforce the PA at my Talk via his "that's no PA, that's just calling a spade a spade", and then how anything I have said tops that on your scale of nastiness. (How is it that an admin can get by with that, and that you've overlooked it even though has been brought to your attention too?) If this website wants to be so abusive as to excuse and overlook an admin from reinforcing a clear and vicious PA, and block the victim for objecting to the craziness of principle going on, ... then I don't know what to tell you Panda. I'll produce those diffs presently. (Again, they are very easy to find. Why is this so difficult, like a court of law? When clearly there are no jurisprudence or even consistency or even fundamental fairness, here. This thread was about an interaction ban request presented by the OP. I was already warned by admin The ed17 for comments re Bushranger. What is it that you would achieve by a block at this point, something preventative?) I've brought up the issue of Bushranger's reinforcement of the PA to four admins now, including you, and have gotten no reply. (Just two threats, one insult, and one nothing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What, you can't tell that I'm trying to give both sides the same leeway here? You know full well that the OP's actions are also fully subject to scrutiny when they file at AN/ANI. Let's try some equality here, shall we? DP 20:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. (I did not bring this AN, the OP brought it to request an interaction ban. I have no interest or need to interact with the OP at all, he has been levying constant attacks and insults. I have no agenda with this AN, and I have no request here, and I certainly have no interest or cause to examine or continue any dispute on any basis with the OP.) I've simply brought up the obvious regarding a PA issued repeatedly against me, by the OP and Bushranger reinforcement of same, and now even you can see Northern has reinforced in his own way. No editor should have to be the target of such PAs, otherwise PA means nothing and is a joke. The fact that an admin has reinforced the PA at my Talk, is the more disturbing to me, not only for the PA itself, but that it comes behind the force of the block bat, and is wholly inconsistent with expectations at WP:ADMINACCT. (Whereas I don't have same/similar expectations of professional conduct from a reg user like the OP.) The fact that you are an admin, Panda, and I've gotten no responses from three other admins on the matter, puts me in a position to ask what is going on? Yet, it wasn't my intention or need to morph this AN outside its original purpose, and I'm sorry if my comments lead you to think that. (I'm simply talking to you about it because you are here, on an unrelated matter. Because I have gotten no answers as mentioned.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyway (to be responsive what you asked for):

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So can we clarify this here, it's only in the first where you're called a narcissist, and the rest he's explaining as per your request what he meant by it ... you can hardly consider being called a "narcissist" to be a major personal attack? On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 0.75. "Asshole", "dickface", MF's favourite C-word ... those are right up at the top. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying the one, I'm just trying to gain perspective here based on YOUR comments which seem to have led to HIS comments, which has now led to additional comments by YOU. Am I getting this correct overall? I'm concerned that your reaction is to insult first, then come across surprised and angry when you get insulted back. As much as I say "someone else's incivility may explain yours, but it will never excuse it, the links shown by both parties so far show that you're regularly the alpha AND the omega in a situation ... and although there's occasionally a gamma and a mu, you're often both cause AND effect. If you start it and someone else responds, that's considered baiting, which ArbComm has already considered to be a significant "evil"...am I being unfair in this analysis? DP 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

as per your request what he meant by it. I never made any such request, nor would I. you can hardly consider being called a "narcissist" to be a major personal attack? I do. On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 0.75. "Asshole", "dickface", MF's favourite C-word ... those are right up at the top. I disagree. YOUR comments which seem to have led to HIS comments. That PA at the ANI was unprovoked. I had no recent interactions with the OP prior, in fact considered that we had parted ways much earlier, and I wanted no contact with him, nor did I make any. your reaction is to insult first, then come across surprised and angry when you get insulted back. Again, that PA was unprovoked. And beyond that PA, going through past exchanges, you will see the exact opposite of what you have described. (I've never, ever, insulted the OP unless it was a provoked response where he initiated with incivilities or insults. [And I stand behind saying so. But I doubt this is a forum to go through ancient exchanges to examine to prove or disprove. But I'm perfectly happy to do that at my Talk or in a dedicated subpage with you, or whomever.]) p.s. The PA was equivalent to asserting an editor is "classic paranoid" or "classic bi-polar". Those are personal -- about a person, slamming their mental health. "Asshole" is just an expression someone is pissed at someone for something said. I think these differences are obvious and don't need my explain. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

at least 8 times the previous week you dropped my name into conflicts that had nothing to do with me. So drop the "unprovoked" bullshit. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No BS. I fail to see how your PA at the ANI was provoked. (I don't see any provoking diff from you for said PA.) Also, you should redact the PA and your reinforcing comments too. (So should User:The Bushranger redact what was equivalent to the same PA when he stated at my user Talk that your PA wasn't a PA but rather "calling a spade a spade".) There wasn't contact between us any time recent prior to the ANI. Also you've been continually insisting that reference to your username (and even no reference to your username but any link to any post by you) in any context or discussion, constitutes "personal attack". You've demonstrated more than once as already shown, how you have erupted with both unnecessary ABF personalizations, and imaginings of self-persecution, to posts I've made at article Talks re subjects I happen to care something about, when you are also involved with the subject matter. [71] [72] You also confessed at the ANI My patience with this editor is exhausted. which I presume was to prepare anyone reading how you might fly off the handle in anger and irrationality. What you don't understand is that I have at least equal or twice as many grievances about you and your behaviors (valid ones, not imagined ones), but the difference is, I've intentionally just avoided you and endeavored to keep posts impersonal and professional, instead of what you do in displays of obvious hatred and irrational rage, and having fun issuing vicious PA and even expounding on why you think you are "qualified" to make such PA at the ANI, and suggesting that since I objected to said PA, it means the PA "stings" and therefore "must be true". Extremely shameful behavior. (It'd be hard to come up with something more "personally derogatory about a contributor" -- go read WP:Personal attack.) But you won't see me open any noticeboard complaint about it. (The Bushranger, on the otherhand, has WP:ADMINACCT standard of behavior expectations per his role as administrator, so, that is importantly different.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"No BS. I fail to see how your PA at the ANI was provoked. (I don't see any provoking diff from you for said PA.)". Clearly you fail to see that dragging people's names into conflicts that have nothing to do with them is thoroughly objectionable behaviour. You have continued to do this even in this very discussion.
"Also, you should redact the PA and your reinforcing comments too. (So should User:The Bushranger redact what was equivalent to the same PA when he stated at my user Talk that your PA wasn't a PA but rather "calling a spade a spade".) ". Subsequent events have only reinforced my impression of your behaviour. And there you go dragging other people into the discussion again with respect to The Bushranger.
"There wasn't contact between us any time recent prior to the ANI. ". So why bring my name up 8 times in a week?
"Also you've been continually insisting that reference to your username ( and even no reference to your username but any link to any post by you) in any context or discussion, constitutes "personal attack". " Show me one single diff where I have said that. What, you can't? Then stop lying about me.
"You've demonstrated more than once as already shown, how you have erupted with both unnecessary ABF personalizations, and imaginings of self-persecution, to posts I've made at article Talks re subjects I happen to care something about, when you are also involved with the subject matter. ". I apologised and struck the comment. Something I've never seen you do, ever. That's old stuff and I don't see how it's relevant, except as a convenient stick for you to beat me with.
"You also confessed at the ANI My patience with this editor is exhausted. which I presume was to prepare anyone reading how you might fly off the handle in anger and irrationality." You "presume" incorrectly, and that is not a "confession" but a statement. My patience with you is indeed exhausted. I wish to end all interaction with you, and especially your mentions of me in contexts where I am uninvolved.
"What you don't understand is that I have at least equal or twice as many grievances about you and your behaviors (valid ones, not imagined ones)," Then open a RFCU or ANI, or shut up.
" but the difference is, I've intentionally just avoided you and endeavored to keep posts impersonal and professional," such as this one?
" instead of what you do in displays of obvious hatred and irrational rage, " I have no hatred for you, only contempt. I pay no mind to you whatsoever when I'm not on wikipedia.
"and having fun issuing vicious PA and even expounding on why you think you are "qualified" to make such PA at the ANI, and suggesting that since I objected to said PA, it means the PA "stings" and therefore "must be true". " Where did I say "must be true"? If you're going to attribute quotes to people and even put them in quotation marks, you'd better be damn sure that the quote is exact. Otherwise, you are simply lying.
"Extremely shameful behavior." I consider deliberately misrepresenting people rather shameful. I also consider dragging people's names through the mud in contexts where they are not involved shameful.
"(It'd be hard to come up with something more "personally derogatory about a contributor" -- go read WP:Personal attack.)" I can think of many things more personally derogatory. And you seem to think that the policy you just linked to doesn't apply to you.
"But you won't see me open any noticeboard complaint about it. " That's what those notice boards are for. I suspect the reason you don't open threads there is because you know your own behaviour will come under scrutiny too.
"(The Bushranger, on the otherhand, has WP:ADMINACCT standard of behavior expectations per his role as administrator, so, that is importantly different.) " Again you drag an uninvolved party into the discussion. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Your PA at the ANI was unprovoked. You didn't offer the/a provoking diff. Mentioning your username in a discussion in context does not jusfity making the PA you did. (You seem to think different. You are very wrong.) // "Bringing your name up" does not equate to personally attacking you. Show me one single diff where I have said that. What, you can't? Then stop lying about me. "Likewise about the "don't post to my attention" thing; that includes posts like this Would be good if we could just stay out of each other's way. Shut up about me and I'll shut up about you, deal? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)" As explained at the ANI, that thread with Drmies was not "about you". If you read NPA it says comment on content not on contributors. The dialogue with Drmies was about competing ways of responding to a sock, pros and cons. The fact that you fictionalized my post into something personal ("about you") is attempting to transform a discussion into a personal attack, and that is dishonest. // I apologised and struck the comment. Said apology was for other editors, not me. You seem to feel perfectly justified in abusing me without apology. At the ANI opened by Mann jess, and in this AN. That's old stuff and I don't see how it's relevant It's the same behavior of you justifying abusing me. So relevant. // My patience with you is indeed exhausted You should explain the significance of said "statement". (What it means re translation into posts on the Wikipedia -- the only thing editors do on this site.) // Then [...], or shut up. Again, you've imagined and accused over and over again of personal offenses where there are none. // I have no hatred for you, only contempt. I really don't care. And splitting hairs "hatred" vs. "contempt" is irrelevant for purpose of this thread, as is what you do or don't do off-wiki time. It does not justify the PA you made at the ANI, and you should redact it, as already told you. // Where did I say "must be true"? You're playing with words, that paraphrase is exactly what you were trying to convey: If "narcissist" and "diva" carry a sting for you, that suggests to me that they're somewhere in the vicinity of the truth. [...] MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC) // The other stuff is just your personal soapboxing/insulting opinions that I don't care to get in the mud with you by commenting on. Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Clarification (your diff shows me I confused you): When I wrote "I've intentionally just avoided you and endeavored to keep posts impersonal and professional", that was regarding posts at Talks on subject matters where you might potentially respond. (And not regarding user Quale or any other user.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's be very clear here: there will be no redaction, as there was no personal attack to be reinforced. Everybody has told you it isn't a personal attack. The fact that you have shopped your complaint to (at least) four admins and gotten "two threats, one insult, and one nothing" should indicate that the problem is not the 'personal attack' you are claiming. There comes a point where your refusal to listen to what everyone is telling you and continuing to insist they're all wrong and you're right becomes an indication that you are not capable of being part of a collegial and constructive editing environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong not to redact your reinforement of a vicious PA. Everybody has told you it isn't a personal attack. My, aren't we exaggerating here. ("Everybody"? Only you, Bushranger, only you. Perhaps the offending user also, one would assume.) I have to make correction, re which now you have tried to use against me, re contacting four admins and receiving "two threats, one insult, one nothing". That was a miscount. I contacted three admins, received one threat (from Panda), one insult (from you), and one no-response (from admin Resolute). So that is in no way a "reflection of community" -- both you and Panda are distinctly enemies of whatever I write, and will misinterpret anything I write if it can be used against me in manipulative fashion. Also your accuse of "canvassing" is equally absurd (I was already in a discussion w/ Resolute on something else). Your arguements are boring, and wrong, and show your abusiveness and disregard to your responsibilities and behavioral expectations per WP:ADMINACCT. (You overlooked a vicious PA to block me for a provoked rhetorical response. Biased much?!? Abusive much?!?) You should redact your "that wasn't a PA, it was calling a spade a spade" so that I do not have to take the measure (which I have been trying utmost not to do by asking for you to redact) to consume time/attention of Arbcom members. (It is not something I prefer to do. But your pretend ignorance what a PA is, and insulting obnoxious comments to reinforce, are over the line. You should reconsider your position, obviously.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've already explained things w.r.t. my involvement multiple times at the ANI that sparked this whole brouhaha, so I won't bother repeating myself since it's been clearly demonstrated it won't be listened to by IHTS. I am, however, rather curious as to where the accusation of being "POV-oriented" came from, as I have no clue where it came from or how it relates to this fracas - as it is it strikes me as another case of IHTS making up something out of whole cloth about an editor he's decided he dislikes, as with the "you were busy" comments at the ANI. I, personally, don't see a need for an IBAN on my account - I've been (as has been noted) not interacting with IHTS anyway, and when it comes to his repeatedly trying to throw mud at me, that's water off a ducks' back, as well as reflecting on the mud-slinger for making unsubstantiated personal attacks (the same thing he's so quick to accuse others of, oddly). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• With respect, the majority of this thread is irrelevant to my request for an interaction ban. If the admins believe I am partially responsible for this state of affairs... fine, if you say so. I'm sorry that I don't respond well to the level of hostility and aggression displayed by IHTS; please excuse my lack of people skills. Now please impose an interaction ban on this editor so I can edit wikipedia without being under constant attack. I am willing to abide by the same conditions. Thanks. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Addendum: I have no interest in "argumentum ad playgroundium", i.e. "he started it", "it's his fault" etc etc. I just want this editor to leave me alone, and I don't believe he will do so unless such a directive is imposed on him. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support one-way WP:IBAN I have been trying to determine through questioning whether this is better as a 2-way WP:IBAN, or if the rare 1-way IBAN is the best approach. So, after trying to unsuccessfully pry information out of IHTS, and any information that is forthcoming is incomplete - and in many cases 90-100% incorrect. Other than information that IHTS has provided has already been refuted by the community as being violations of WP:NPA (or at least, not significant enough to warrant action), I find IHTS's continual attacks, and dragging MB's name up again and again as inappropriate, bordering on harassment. As such, I fully support a 1-way interaction ban as requested by MB, with the stern warning to MB that: a) the "narcissistic" comment was indeed close enough to be considered a violation of WP:NPA by many so please take that as a warning, and b) I highly recommend you voluntarily WP:IBAN yourself from IHTS as you have already volunteered to do. DP 19:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  trying to unsuccessfully pry information out of IHTS?? I have no idea what you mean or what you are referring to. Ditto your IHTS's continual attacks -- you're making that up -- diff these unprovoked "attacks" to support what you accuse. There are none. dragging MB's name up again and again as inappropriate Whenever I have mentioned his username it has been in context with whatever issue. (Show where it has not been, with a proving diff, rather than just making up whatever you want to accuse.) bordering on harassment. That is totally assume-bad-faith on your part, and a manglement of something serious like WP:HARASSMENT. Your idea is to set up one-way ban even though I have never issued any incivility toward MaxBrowne that was not provoked by him, and MaxBrowne is able to continue to chararacter-assassinate without provocation, and issue unprovoked PAs, as he did numerous times at [this ANI and [this Talk thread "with the stern warning" that doesn't really mean anything as you ask him "please"?? How absurd. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support mutual interaction ban. I don't think the blame can be apportioned symmetrically here, but there is enough to justify the interaction ban being mutual. As for Ihardlythinkso, he has been badgering other users and admins about MaxBrowne for a very extended period of time. This has also been directed towards me, three months ago he launched a rather vicious rant against me and he was utterly insulted every time I pointed out to him that he should not make "fuck off" comments and the like. All this is chronicled at the end of this thread. Highlights:
  • Calling MaxBrowne "Mr Bully Editor".
  • When I told him not to respond with personal attacks, he attacked me for "Your BOOMERANG thoughtless crap to justify the result you want" and told me to "stop lying and mischaracterizing me at that thread".
  • " I wouldn't lower myself to the likes of that kind of tacky shit"
  • "What a do-nothing waste of time with you in this thread!"
  • " I've put up with his shit best I can but there is a limit."
  • "he gives a flying fuck, since you essentially have OK'd him to do anything he pleases"
  • "The onus is on you to explain this shit, not me."

From reading whay IHTS is saying, you would think that he is completely blameless, that admins and MaxBrowne are forming an unholy alliance against him, and that all the personal attacks from him are completely justified or not personal attacks at all. His constant sniping at MaxBrowne has gone on for months and apparently shows no sign of abating. The behavior of MaxBrowne is less severe, but this is a WP:POINT violation, and his approach towards Ihardlythinkso has at times been undiplomatic and lacking in decorum; calling people narcissists is not helpful. It is best that he not interact with Ihardlythinkso either. This conflict has taken a heavy toll and wasted a lot of editorial resources so a sanction that puts a stop to it is long overdue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh Bullshit. (Have you even read his [not only vicious PA but] attempts to character assassinate at this ANI?? Ditto this thread at WT:CHESS?? The aggressive and uncivil editor is MaxBrowne. I have initiated no incivilities with him. (Ever.) I have only responded to his provocations. And fuck you for backing his vicious crap and supporting his unprovoked defaming and slanderous crap. People should take a look at your user Talk where you show clear bias to not criticize MaxBrowne's unprovoked incivilities. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Sjakkalle, you've made more than one accusation here: all the personal attacks from him are completely justified or not personal attacks at all. His constant sniping at MaxBrowne has gone on for months. Now back it/them up. (I have only ever said my incivilities toward MaxBrowne were provoked, and that is all. Your extending what I said to "completely justified" and "not personal attacks at all" is pure bullshit and made up by you. I never said those things. You like stuffing things I never said or thought in my mouth. Regarding constant sniping -- same deal: back it up. Present examples where I have "sniped" at user MaxBrowne. My complaints about that user at your user Talk were not "sniping at" that user, they were explanations of my dissatisfaction with your inept and do-nothing approach to that user regarding his clear and on-going incivilities. (You call his vicious PA at the already-linked ANI "undiplomatic and lacking in decorum; calling people narcissists is not helpful"??? Jesus! Who the fuck are you trying to kid with your politically correct descriptions and minimizations??) This conflict has taken a heavy toll and wasted a lot of editorial resources By MaxBrowne at ANI and AN and WT:CHESS. Not by me but by that user. I don't create complaints to consume others' attention. (Exception was your attention at your personal user Talk.) I tried to negotiate with you regarding reeling that user in, then gave up, when I saw you were biased to not do anything about that user, and were fictitiously laying blame equally. (That was bullshit. And it was why I disengaged with you for the rest of my wiki-life. But now you are here again and laying more bullshit blame. If you make a charge, back it up in context for examination. Otherwise it is pure slander. Your list of quotes is without any contexts, and clearly based merely on "bad words" in attempt to defame and discredit. The "bully" name was justified, if you like to examine it; but clearly you don't want to examine anything in context, just accuse and smear. You already have shown your civility-warrior status by blocking Eric Corbett over rough words, and were chastized for doing so by the community. So now you turn to an easier target to carry out your one-dimensional view of incivility. Your POV is rigid and narrow and transparent. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You write "I have only ever said my incivilities toward MaxBrowne were provoked, and that is all." In all of your postings, I have never seen you take any responsibility for your swearing, rudeness, condescension, and personal attacks or any acceptance that you cannot do that, regardless of who initiated it. You say you did all this because you were "provoked", that is an attempt at justification. Indeed, in your reply you write: "The "bully" name was justified".

Regarding the evidence of sniping, since coming to my talkpage to complain about MaxBrowne, you have been complaining about MaxBrowne, for example on the talkpages of Quale, Resolute, Cobblet, SummerPHD and EatsShootsAndLeaves. If this goes to ArbCom, I am sure that either I or someone else will be more than happy to present evidence of your attacks on MaxBrowne, as well as any other editor who said something you didn't like.

I could have used sharper language to describe MaxBrowne's use of the word "narcissist". I believe it was an attack on the person, and a violation of Wikipedia's behavorial policy. I believe that making such a characterization was utterly stupid of him. I believe he ruined much of the hope I had for reconciliation with that statement. And as I said, I think it is such a severe incident that the interaction ban should go both ways. Usually, I am not that direct unless it has become clear that a person isn't listening at all. But sanctioning him for that attack, while not sanctioning your conduct, would be completely unfair since the sheer volume and intensity of incivility and attacks are much greater from you than MaxBrowne.

You write: "Your list of quotes is without any contexts". I don't think it was taken out of context at all. And even if it was, do you really believe that there exists a context where using that kind of language about other volunteer editors is acceptable?

Ihardlythinkso, you have made numerous positive contributions to chess articles. Nearly everyone on Wikipedia greatly appreciates good article contributions, and so we have a great deal of patience with editors who provide that to us. But the patience is not unlimited, and you are burning through the community's patience at an alarming rate right now. For example, one of the chess editors I greatly respect, and who I have known for almost ten years on Wikipedia, was for a long time appreciative of your presence, until a few weeks ago when you told him to "fuck off", explicitly in an edit summary. I have not seen him edit since that. If this is allowed to continue, your conduct will drive people away from whatever you involve yourself in. Therefore your conduct will not be allowed to continue in the long run. What will happen if you stay this course is that you will face an indefinite ban handed down from ArbCom or the community once that patience is exhausted. It has happened to a handful of very able content contributors in years past, who I shall not name here, but whose cases can be found in the ArbCom archives. You are still not banned and you can still turn this around, but you must stop making these very vicious attacks on your fellow editors, whether provoked or otherwise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Sjakkalle, I've avoided totally you after I gave up on you re the thread on MaxBrowne. But now you are here "spanking [my] bottom" and lecturing me. I think not. This is not a forum for that, and, if you really wanted to discuss the issues you've raised seriously, we could do that at my user Talk, or yours, or in Email. But you don't. (You just want to lecture, spank my bottom like my "mommy", in a mud-throwing AN. [Oh let me correct myself. Your opinions are always correct and must never be questioned or challenged, because you are "God"?!? And anything I say, as a non-admin, is immediately in jeopardy of being disruptive and a ban, because I defend myself against an obviously attacking pernicious user who's out for blood, and, I'm not allowed to do that, else you come in here and tell who is boss and "knows better"?!? How is that?!?] I don't care if you've known User:Quale for 10 years or 100. Duration of knowing someone does not exempt them from being human and evincing clear prejudice against one user [me] while complimenting often grossly uncivil and pernicious users [three] that have asked for my head on a pike. But I should shut up and take whatever you have a mind to say, because you are admin?!? And aren't the subject of an AN?!! (When AN, ANI, even RFAR can be opened by anybody for any reason, bogus or not, agenda-driven or not.) You are in no position to lecture me, Sjakkalle, other than you carry a block bat, and the fact I'm subject of an AN decided to be opened by a clear enemy who wants my blood and has attacked here repeatedly to poke and defame. And your assumption that others beside myself can be driven off this project, but apparently not me, from gross incivilities and abuses, is really interesting. (What the fuck do you think I am, a robot?? Not a person??) And the fact you dwell and concentrate on word "fuck" and not dynamics going on, show where your head is at re civility/incivility. [Which is an extremely shallow and voluntary/arbitrary place. You are not "God" and your POV re what is blockable incivility should have been repudiated with your block of Eric Corbett. But I am a lesser target, so above instead of block you bring up "banning". {Well, well, well. I'm shocked.} You wanna talk with me, then do it seriously as prev suggested. Not your drive-by spanking at an AN.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are trying to provoke me into saying something that you can use against me. I have no idea what Eric Corbett has to do with this. You have complained a lot about people making false allegations and slandering you. But I will challenge you with the same tone that you are using against me: You are attacking me for blocking Eric Corbett. Prove that I have ever done so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to provoke you. (Perhaps that's just your ABF peeking out!?) Am I mistaken? (I thought you blocked Malleus/Eric Corbett over some incivility[s]. [Is my memory failing? Could be.] The point is that such block demos your concept of incivility being centered on "bad words", not seeing baits or other less obvious forms of incivility other thoughtful people both suffer under and deem worse than a list of "bad words". I see also that you bend over backwards excusing "classic narcissist" with your euphemistic "not helpful" rather than calling it what it clearly is -- an unmistakable and clear personal attack. (What could be more personal, and more derogatory, than claiming someone has a personality disorder to the tune of a diagnosable mental illness?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Surely a block is in order? This editor has not even discussed the proposed interaction ban, just ranted at and insulted anyone who dares to criticise. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It has already been shown how MaxBrowne imagines attacks and slights that do not exist. (He stated this dialogue was "about him". He imagined my posts to this article Talk were personal and a persecution of him. He blew up at WT:CHESS and again became ruthlessly uncivil by personalizing and mischaracterized my contributions to a subject discussion [gender-neutral language], even constructing a personal attack page intended to defame and discredit in that project Talk page thread. What do all of these incidents have in common? MaxBrowne's inability to control himself from making unfounded accusations and unprovoked attacks including his vicious PA at the recent ANI which others like to excuse or minimize. The problem editor here is MaxBrowne, not me. If mentioning another editor in a discussion, or diff-ing one of their posts in a discussion about some topic, is considered "impolite" or "not acceptable", well, quite frankly, I don't quite understand that, but perhaps I could if someone explained it to me. (Because it does not seem uncivil to me at all. Only with an intent to insult or snipe, and that has never been my intent, in spite of accusations by others who apparently understand my internal motivations better than I do because they have crystal balls.) If mentioning a user by username is such an "unacceptable behavior" as has been shouted about here in this thread, then, isn't it reasonable to ask to point out what guideline or policy says as much? Since there is so much emotion behind it? Because the accusation of bad intent is false, and User:MaxBrowne seems to erupt just at fact that a diff of his, or his username, is brought up in any context. Without a policy or guideline or demonstrable intent to irritate, his complaints are nothing more than prickly imagination and jumping up and down in tantrum. Perhaps he should be admonished to settle down and stop accusing based on his active imagination of slights, which have already been demonstrated he is wont to do. (And if you appease his childish protests and demands, it is nothing more than coddling the unreasonable, because he "protests so much".) The fact is I have been sincere that I have intended or meant no poking or jibes at MaxBrowne in any context where his username was mentioned. He is oversensitive and imagining it. And why should I be sanctioned for his over-sensitivity and sense of self-persecution that has no basis except his imagination and "contempt" for me?? The editor who needs to be reeled in is MaxBrowne, not me. The mentioning of his username in discussions in context have been called "interactions" repeatedly above. They are not "interactions" because they were not hyper-linked (or if I did, that was a mistake; but I don't think I did even once). The only way he could or would know about his username being mentioned in discussion in context therefore, is through him following my edits, looking for something to cry foul about and scream about, as he has done in this AN. MaxBrowne issued a vicious PA against me in the recent ANI, and, even though I have asked more than once for him to provide the/a provoking diff, there has been no diff. That PA was out-of-bounds, should be redacted, and was unprovoked. His reinforcement and elaboration about why he can make such a PA, and others' support of same, is a shame (and will probably result in just more drama and waste of time at Arbitration Committee). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Admins. Please. Do. Something.MaxBrowne (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who opened this AN, MaxBrowne. I've responded to what's been written here. I have left you alone and had no interactions with you whatever. Yet you attacked me at the ANI with a vicious PA unprovoked, and also invested in out-of-context character-assassination at both the ANI and at WT:CHESS. I've stayed away from you long before these things. You are the pursuer and aggressor. (Prickly, hyper-sensitive, loudly complaining over imagined offenses.) You've admitted in this thread you have "contempt" for me. That is fine, have it. But you are responsible what you write here. As I am. I would like to continue to edit Wikipedia articles and contribute what I'm able in peace. You are just filled with unwarranted/undeserved attacks levied at the ANI, attempts to smear and defame at the ANI and at WT:CHESS, and attempts to sanction and block here. (Pattern?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Admins. I am at my wit's end. Please do something urgently. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I suggest that, for a couple of hours, you stop following this. I don't think posting for help repeatedly in bold letters is going to accelerate any decision, but it does seem to be resulting in more replies from the editor with whom you wish to interact no more. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, I'm not insensitive and can see/observe how super-sensitive you are to any reference whatever that indicates you (username or even a diff). Though I feel your reactions have been over-reactions (and your accuses over-the-top), no matter ... I can do my best, consciously, to avoid stepping on your toes. p.s. Good luck on orthochess articles; there is much to do there, there are few active editors, and so much is in disarray. (And I've seen you do some real improvements, too.) It's a lot of work. Best of luck. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your backhanded compliments and the implication that I'm the one with the problem for objecting to your insulting me multiple times in threads that have nothing to do with me. It is of course sheer sophistry to claim that I object to any and all mention of my name, since the diffs I linked to were all instances of you insulting me, or at the very least portraying me in a negative light. The main victim of your insults was of course Quale (talk · contribs) whom you appear to have driven off the project (hopefully only temporarily). One of the crimes for which you endlessly reproached him was thanking editors you don't like for contributing to WikiProject chess. I still want that interaction ban, and I encourage other editors who have been the victims of your vicious rants to seek similar remedies. I am skeptical that you have truly turned over a new leaf. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Consistent? (Your dragging User:Quale's name into this thread, when it has nothing to do with him.) Consistent? (Your asking for zero interaction with me, yet you try and lay blame about everything under the sun and attempt to get in back-and-forth cat-fight with me.) I'll respond to only one thing: Contrary to what you accused, I never criticized Quale for leaving compliments to other editors. Rather his selectivity in leaving compliments to three editors he knows have been hostile toward me, while over the same timeframe never complimenting my contributions, only criticizing, leaving digs and lastly an unwarranted blame. So it is he who drove me from editing pure chess articles anymore, not vice-versa.) I'm ignoring your other accuses, because they're just invitations to a cat-fight ala The Jerry Springer Show. (Oh which reminds me, the reason I'll never open an ANI or AN thread isn't because I'm "afraid", it's because the cultures there are irresponsible with accuses thrown around like mud with no requirement to examine for fairness/unfairness, reasonableness/unreasonableness. I think no one [including me] should have to suffer that, it's uncivilized and a shame for all of Wikipedia to have such undisciplined and abusive forums geared to smear and defame. If that's your thing then that's your thing, you fit right in, and my opinion of the venues is "wrong". So be it.)

I offered what you want because you have made it obvious it is so ultra-important to you. (Simple.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've been watching this section for a while and I was hoping it would resolve itself but it would seem not. Both users are accusing (with evidence) each other of personal attacks, harassment and incivility including within this thread. Given that it would seem the best way to go forward would be to impose a mutual IBAN so that the attacks between them stop. This way we are not saying that one side is worse or more disruptive than the other, only that together they are causing disruption to the project and making the environment hostile for each other, and both seem to have either stated or implied this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't quite follow the logic. (I've had no interactions w/ the OP for some time, I have avoided them. The only exception is at an ANI where the OP made accuses and PAs, and in this AN. Without ANIs and ANs I would have continued my no-interaction strategy with the OP. The OP opens this AN and I reply. So now you want to sanction me for interacting at the AN itself? When outside of AN/ANIs, there are no interactions?!

  Also could you explain what how "hoping it would resolve itself" could have occurred? (I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain how it might have been possible to "resolve itself"? I really do not know what you mean. I'm not responsible for the OP continuing to poke and accuse. I didn't open this AN, and have no agenda here, other than to respond to specific things written, in my defense. [For that, you want to sanction!?])

  I'm also confused, how you define "disruption" (to Wikipedia), when the only interactions are at ANI/ANs, not initiated by me, and not my idea there to levy accuses and pokes. I did not open those threads or ask for community time or have any agenda. It was not my idea to either open ANI/ANs, not issue blames there or accuses. What did you want of me after these things are done by others whom I do not control? (Don't defend myself? Those boards are public and permanent record, and some very defaming and nasty accuses have been made. I have not even replied to all of them. So defending oneself is now a sanctionable offense? And a "disruption" to Wikipedia??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you've avoided them in the past would you have a problem with a mutual IBAN, which as I said, doesn't imply that you alone are the cause just that when the two of you interact it stops working as well. It's disruptive because for example, this section has been carrying on for more than a week, and absorbs people's time. I was hoping that you'd see that this is an issue because it keeps coming up, so therefore you'd agree that the best course of action would be a mutual IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• You make it sound so simple. ("IBAN" is just one word. So simple, right? No. Not as simple as seems to "sound".) I've offered what MaxBrowne wants. If a (mutual) IBAN is imposed, there are many questions left hanging ... And who do I ask, who controls it, who defines it (the conditions, the rules), clarifies it, who supervises it?? (For example, if MaxBrowne decided to edit a chess variant article I also edited ... there can be no discussion over a content dispute?? If MaxBrowne opened a thread at WT:CHESS that related also to chess variant or chess problemist articles ... I cannot post to that discussion?? If he edits a chess variant or chess problem or chess problemist BLP article, then I cannot edit that article?? That is equivalent to a revolving-article ban, or even topic ban! [There are many possibilities.] This will only cause future problems and commensurate time-sink. I have offered to not reference MaxBrowne by name or even a diff of a post of his, since he seems to so adamantly need that. (Even though he mentions User:Quale who is not involved in this discussion or issue?!?) I have no interest to squabble with MaxBrowne over anything (or insult, or defame, or accuse; however, he has shown distinct pattern to do all of those things to me at the ANI and AN -- that is not me complaining, that is simple fact). MaxBrowne has made a war of this, and other than defend myself at ANI and AN, I have had no part of it. (Who is the aggressor here? Who incites interactions and where??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is why I said above that one-way IBANS don't work. When an IBAN is proposed for two editors, each one always says, "It's not me who's the problem, it's them! They should be banned from me, but I should be able to mention them." Who's going to wade through all this to determine who should be the "bad" one not to contact the other? Mutual IBAN or move this elsewhere. It's really dragging. Doc talk 07:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• You've commented a few times Doc, and you say that you want this to be resolved with either a mutual IBAN or moved elsewhere. So given that, are you supporting a mutual IBAN? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I don't support a one-way IBAN. I truly support the dropping of the IBAN request and the two of them just ignoring each other and closing this thread. If that is simply not possible, and a formal IBAN must be issued failing all other options, I guess the only way to be fair about it would be a mutual IBAN. No bad guy, just two editors that must be separated. Doc talk 08:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• the two of them just ignoring each other and closing this thread. If that is simply not possible. That is not only possible but doable from my end. I have already offered it. The stumbling block isn't me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: Ihardlythinkso stated above that it would be doable for them to just ignore you from now on rather than having a formal IBAN. Would you agree to do the same thing from now on and is this arrangement acceptable to you. Given that it looks like consensus is going to be lacking in this section to impose an IBAN I'd suggest that this would be the best way to move forward. If it doesn't work either of you can take it back to AN linking to this and then asking for a formal IBAN which will be easier to show is necessary as the informal option hasn't worked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but an informal agreement is absolutely unacceptable to me. I'm quite adamant about this. As I have already explained, IHTS has previously demonstrated that he will not respect an informal request to cease interaction. An informal arrangement would give him license to continue on his current course of randomly smearing me during the course of conflicts with other users. While I don't like the implication from some in this discussion that I'm equally to blame for the current state of affairs, I'll shrug my shoulders and say "whatever" for now. I am confident that my post-IHTS wiki life will be considerably more productive due to a drastic reduction in conflict levels and stress.
I want the terms of the IBAN, and the consequences of violating them, to be very clearly spelled out to avoid any gaming of the system. The terms being: (1) No posting to each others user page or talk page (2) No replying to each other in discussions (3)No referring to each other directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. (4) No undoing each other's edits (but we can edit the same articles so long as we keep to the terms of the iban). Basically as described in WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Callanecc, I think a formalized IBAN - even if mutual - needs to occur. One needs to only read the absolute sense of exasperation in MB's writing, more than once. I do not believe that's fake, and I believe it's truly indicative of someone who's teetering on the edge. As much as we say "it's the internet, get over it", that's not always as simple as it sounds. There must be the spectre of a block-at-any-time at this moment in order to help both parties retreat from the brink. This will allow both to recover from percieved or actual issues without the fear of "what's the other person saying about me on Wikipedia right now". We cannot do "partial circumcision" or "half-pregnant" right now - this needs to have the elements of reality built in ES&L 11:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the comments by MaxBrowne, that an informal agreement won't work because it hasn't in the past, plus ES&L's comment I restate my support for a formal, mutual IBAN to be imposed with the wording from WP:BAN. I hope that Ihardlythinkso can see where MaxBrowne and ES&L are coming from and allow the formal mutual IBAN to go through without any more drama, especially since they didn't have a problem with just ignoring each other. See it as an extension of that, mutually imposed so it doesn't state that there is clearly a problem with one side over the other. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If MaxBrowne really wants a mutual IBAN, there's no easy way to deny the request. Since "dropping it" is not an option, and a one-way ban request is no longer on the table: what other choice is there? Doc talk 12:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's just do this

Rather than let the discussion waver towards that point, let's just put it on the table. I've been following this discussion for the last few days and it's high time to put it in black and white. Proposal: Formal interaction ban between Ihardlythinkso and Max Browne backed up with the usual restrictions, exceptions and sanctions for violations of said ban, per WP:IBAN. Blackmane (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oppose interaction ban. This is an Wikiquette assistance thread which, unfortunately, has to be played out here because we made the stupid collective decision to shut that forum down. The thread's be going for 7 days because, let's face it, there's not a lot of benefit in attempting to sort which of IHTS and MB (listed alphabetically) is being more immature, and the fact there's been little response should be a clue that it's up to them to act like mature adults. There are, in fact, one-way interaction bans and the best ones are the uber-secret unpublished ones where an editor simply stops interacting with another editor. Back in the WQA days folks unhappy with my opinions would tell me so on my talk page. Often, I would simply ignore them -- no comment, no revert, just let the bot archive it. The all time record for the number of times an editor would try to interact with me was only six. (Since I'm over 14 both biologically and maturity wise I fail to see why I should care about a Wikipedia editor spouting unsupported nonsense about me. See also The Bushranger's spot on comments a week ago, above.)
The problem with the interaction ban -- besides the make work for the admin closing and notifying the editors and they or a wiki-gnome updating editing restrictions -- it is won't work. Look at MB's statement above, especially the "indirectly" part. What that means is the next time IHTS makes any ambiguous critical statement about other editors they'll be another thread arguing whether or not he meant MB and whether it was a violation. NE Ent 13:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The "directly or indirectly" is part of the IBAN language. Changes to that page need to be discussed there. Doc talk 13:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "indirectly" would only apply to clear cut cases, e.g. if I were to say "that <expletive> who constantly dropped my name into arguments with other editors", or if he were to say "that <expletive> who called me a narcissist", there would be no doubt in either case who was the <expletive> being referred to. For me the status quo, i.e. IHTS is free to rant and insult me to his heart's content with no consequences, is simply unacceptable. Failure to impose a formal IBAN will enable this behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reiterating support for mutual interaction ban per my comments above. Enough is enough, this conflict is a drain on our editorial resources and the personal attacks are patently unacceptable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• And reiterating my support per my comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Not just for the sake of the 2 editors, but for all of us ES&L 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support though to be honest, I'm not sure how useful this is going to be. The way in which the relevant editors are commenting suggests they both need a short break from the topics they are interacting on, or even Wikipedia. I don't think either of them would desire those sanctions, but if they fail to respect the spirit of their agreement or formally imposed restriction to avoid making/causing more unnecessary issues, how many other alternatives are left? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Bored now. Mediation, if you must, but if they insist on attracting admin attention then I for one am likely to just block the pair of them until they can get along. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Before chiming in with the "they're as bad as each other" mantra, which I find personally offensive, please consider the relative amounts of conflict and admin time generated by the two editors apart from with each other. This is the only conflict I've been in that has carried on for any extended time; in all other cases WP:STICKs have been dropped and encyclopedia-building has continued.
  It's a common tactic for serial WP:NPA/WP:CIV offenders to seize on any violations made by the other party, bring them up relentlessly, accuse the other party of the exact same things they themselves are guilty of, and do all this with copious amounts of text. The effect is to intimidate those who would disagree with them, generate far more heat than light, and create sufficient confusion in the minds of observers that they end up saying "they're as bad as each other, let's just WP:TROUT them". And so the cycle continues.
  Concerning the "it won't work" argument, that's a cop-out. If such measures "don't work", that's a matter for discussion at the relevant wikipedia policy talk page, not for this or any other individual case where such a measure is under consideration. The fact is that current wikipedia policy allows for such measures to be taken, and that this editor is desperate enough to request one. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh trust me, IDHT decided to play that "seize on any violations" game on one of my talkpages recently. There's a difference when one is actually willing to do one's proper penance and change one's outlook and behaviour DP 23:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Another bot malfunctioning

Well about a month ago, a same issue occurred . Been looking at filter logs and spotted Special:Contributions/10.68.16.31. ///EuroCarGT 02:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a short while so we can get this worked out. ---Jayron32 03:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another: Special:Contributions/10.68.16.39. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well 10. addresses will be operating in the internal WMF network, so it will not be a good idea to block, collateral damage is likely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• ^This. DO NOT BLOCK INTERNAL IP ADDRESSES. You will cause random collateral damage via XFF blocking. Legoktm (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Better to figure out which bots are involved, even if it involves asking a checkuser to help. I've blocked both the bots, and will now unblock the IPs. Risker (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't block a bot when its only malfunction is logged-out editing — this only prevents logged-in editing, after all, and won't affect anything that the bot's doing wrongly. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• What would your recommendation be? -- KTC (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

How about doing the "figure out which bots are involved" part, without blocking anything until you understand what's going on? It doesn't look like there is any page corruption happening here; it's just logged-out editing. My guess is that when the WMF reset editing sessions to deal with the Heartbleed bug, that the bots didn't "notice" that they had been logged out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why the bot's editing tokens still work when the bot is logged out. Someone should probably open a Bugzilla ticket about that, if there's not one already. Anyway I'd ask that the bot not be allowed to edit logged out. It's difficult enough to tell bot and human edits apart on any scale even when the bot is logged in. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely: logged-out editing is by definition an improper functioning of the bot. All bots are supposed to be coded so that they automatically are shut down if they get logged out, and either have coding that logs them back in, or they are manually restarted by the owner. Bot edits are flagged differently than logged-out edits, they show up on watchlists differently, and many actions of approved bots would be considered suspicious if carried out by logged-out editors. Many bots also have additional "privileges" that require them to be logged-in to activate (for example, anti-vandalism bots can edit semi-protected pages, and certain bots even have admin permissions), so they're by definition not working properly if they're logged out. This is a core functionality of bots, it's not something that's nice to have, and logged-out bot editing has been deprecated for years. Risker (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Warning for letting the Russian point of view be heard

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 diffs I want you to look at are in bold.)

I would like to hear some feedback on what happened at

• Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation#Requested move (April 2014)
• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 April#Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
• User talk:Moscow Connection#Warning

I think Future Perfect at Sunrise expressed a much stronger personal opinion about the Crimean crisis here, when closing a move request.

But then again, it can be hardly in serious doubt that this very much matches the reality in this case: no independent real-world observer could deny that the action in question here was in fact unilateral, and that it did involve force. If the term "annexation" is factually accurate according to the hugely dominant view of the events as expressed in reliable sources, then the WP:NPOV policy cannot be held to prevent us from using it. We'd only be forced to avoid it in favour of a more neutral-sounding option if there was a real, significant disagreement among reliable independent observers (i.e. other than the opinions of the perpetrators themselves) as to whether or not the events here constitute an act of "annexation". I do not see anybody citing any reliable source arguing such a point

— Future Perfect at Sunrise

But after I constested his closure he warned' me for comment where I simply wanted to persuade Wikipedia editors to be more tolerant towards other opinions and choose a neutral title for the article.

(Reply to your previous comment) The problem that it wasn't unilateral, but the "Annexation" title makes it look so. No one took anything from anyone. People who live in Crimea didn't like what was going on in the state they happened to find themselves in 23 years ago and decided to join another. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(Off topic.) And by the way, it may sound strange to Americans, but Ukraine and Russia are single nation. Most people have relatives in Ukraine or have Ukrainian ancestors. (And those who don't simply don't know they do.) All attempts by the Western media to make Russians and Ukrainians hate each other will fail cause we are them and they are us. Russia didn't take anything from Ukraine, it simply saved some people from the rule of some evil people. It is very sad that Wikipedia instead of providing a neutral view of things (and in this case it should have been kind and understanding and let the Russian point of view be heard as well as the Western point of view) is promoting hate and intolerance. I'm not talking about this particular article but you can look at any article related to the 2013/2014 Ukrainian crisis and you'll see a lot of hate. At least, let's name articles neutrally. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

— Moscow Connection

I tried to demonstrate that the title starting with "Annexation" was a Western point of view and I explained the Russian point of view and I asked people to be more tolerant to other people's opinions and let the Russian point of view be heard along with the Western point of view. I personally see a lot of pro-Maidan POV stuff in Wikipedia articles related to the situation in Ukraine and I find it rather disturbing how non-neutral they are.

By the way, I've seen people expressing very strong and very personal anti-Russian opinions on talk pages. I can find some examples easily. Can I list some of them here? Will they be warned just the same as I was?

I would also want to know how I should behave to not be blocked. I have honestly tried to do something about a few of the biased articles, but I think it is too dangerous to continue. I would like admins to tell me how to behave in the future. It looks like i've already been warned and the next time I try to explain the anti-Maidan POV I will be blocked.

P.S. This topic is no way an attempt to attack the admin. I simply want to know whether the warning was fair. I also want to understand whether a person who wants to make Wikipedia articles less anti-Russian is welcome or hated in the English Wikipedia.

P.P.S. And yes, I would really like to get some feedback cause I'm practically scared of what happens on Wikipedia lately. Wikipedia seems pretty happy with articles titled like "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine". I just want to know if I am going to be blocked if I don't stop and let the anti-Russian articles be.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Our goal is not to "let the Russian point of view" be heard. It is to summarize facts, as the reliable sources have reported them. If most are calling the events an "Annexation", then the neutral thing to do is to call them the same thing here. "Neutral" doesn't mean give every person who has a different point of view a chance to air their musings on the event. If there are significant differences in how it is being reported by different sources, then those different views can be documented and cited within the articles. In other words, we don't take sides, we just document and verify facts that other reliable sources have published, period. And the names of the topics are reflective of this: they are not our opinions, they are based upon the opinions of the reliable sources only. As for Future Perfect at Sunrise, his actions in warning you seem to be proportionate to the problem. I found the closing to be extremely detailed. This isn't RFC Review, it is WP:AN, so I haven't tried to reweigh the votes myself, however, I don't see any misconduct of any kind by Fut. Perf. Indeed, I see a well though out closing that went to great lengths to offer a full explanation of the rationale, using policy and participation as a guide. I'm sure I couldn't have done it as well myself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  But what should I do now? Should I just shup up? If someone states it was a forceful annexation — it's okay. If someone states Russians and Ukrainians are one nation — it's not okay.
  It's obvious that most English-language sources express the Western point of view. But most sources in Russian express the opposite point of view. Wikipedia should not be anti-Russian simply because the Western media is.
  I'm quite frustrated with what is happening in the English Wikipedia and in my comment I was warned for I simply tried to explain a different point of view to people. I thought that maybe people should understand there are other opinions, not only "forceful annexation", "occupation", etc. It is really strange how you can say "forceful annexation" and it will be considered a neutral POV simply because it agrees with what the Western sources say. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  Well, the Wikipedia isn't really the proper forum for pro-Putin hegemony. As the Russian media is largely under the thumb of the government these days, they really can't be said to be much of a reliable source for anything either, so we go by what the actual reliable sources say on the matter. The North Korean leaders, when they aren't busy shooting singing troupes in the head or barbecuing former party members with flamethrowers, would likely love to get their point-of-view represented in North Korea, but it ain't gonna happen for similar reasons. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  This is much worse than what I was warned for. (That's exactly what I meant. There are plenty of statements like this in Wikipedia and they are considered normal. "Pro-Putin hegemony", comparing Russia to North Korea, etc.) [By the way, keep in mind that what you hear about North Korea might not be true. I wouldn't say something like this because I don't know anything for sure, but you said that North Korean leaders are "busy shooting singing troupes in the head or barbecuing former party members with flamethrowers" and you will get away with this. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• We are not here to Right Great Wrongs, so Wikipedia is the wrong place to try to present "the other side of the story". We don't discriminate against foreign language sources, however we do consider that Ukraine and Russian sources likely have their own bias, as they aren't completely objective. If most of the sources are saying one thing, that is what we say here. That is the role of an encyclopedia. If there is significant coverage stating that it wasn't an annexation, then that can be worked into the article, as we do want to show every significant perspective but the titling and lede are based upon the majority of coverage, using the best independent and objective sources, regardless of language. We do NOT publish "The Truth®", we only publish verifiable facts based on what others are saying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

While my personal POV is that this was pretty much a straightforward aggressive act of territorial acquisition of the type that has thankfully become less common post-WW2, I think that the position of Moscow Connection deserves consideration. Pretty much all "reliable sources" consider this an act of aggression if we limit our search for sources to Western media. But on many issues, the POV will be very different if you examine the media in countries with which the West has historically had a rocky relationship. Are Chinese, Russian, and Arabic newspapers automatically excluded from being "reliable sources"? My guess is that "mainstream" opinion expressed in these outlets would be very different on many topics than those of Western media. I suppose one could argue that there is less media independence from the government for the media in these companies than in the West, but then folks in those countries could equally point to the ownership of most Western Media outlets by large, multi-national corporations.

I don't agree with him, but I think there is an element of truth on Moscow Connection's remarks that needs to be taken seriously. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are editorial matters, not administrative, and as I've said, we don't discriminate against foreign language sources, although obviously Ukrainian and Russian sources have to be weighed carefully as they have an interest in the outcome and perception. As to the administrative matters (what this board is here to review), I don't see any problems with Fut. Perf.'s actions, and they appear to be made in the best of faith. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very troubled by Future's use of the word "perpetrators".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • When one nation violates the sovereignty of another nation, an act that is quite clearly illegal under international treaty, "perpetrator" is a rather apt descriptor. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, then you'd encourage closing admins to make such statements? That should ensure they are accepted as fair by all. I'm reminded of the saying that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. We don't deal in justice here, but the principle remains. I'd like the administrator in question to clarify what he meant, please. Per WP:ADMIN. I'd also like Future to clarify if he is saying there that all sources based in Russia or Ukraine should not be considered for purposes of the closing or other U-R matters.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The point I was making was that in deciding what is or isn't a notable and significant disagreement regarding how to call a contentious and potentially offensive act, we give little or no consideration to the terminological sensitivities of the party responsible for the act itself – the "perpetrator" of the act, for lack of a more general term. That the person or party responsible for action A will disagree with calling it "X", when "X" has negative implications, can be taken for granted and is insignificant. What counts is whether independent observers have voiced disagreement over whether action A is an instance of "X". Such independent disagreement appears to be absent here. To give another Wikipedian example of such a case: Water boarding (action A) is known to be a form of torture (concept "X") – unambiguously so, without any doubt or significant disagreement about it in reliable independent sources. A couple of years ago, the government of a rather powerful nation, which was known to have perpetrated action A, insisted that action A should not be called "X", and many Wikipedians debated to what extent that ought to be reflected in our choice of language. Quite rightly, we came to the conclusion that it shouldn't. Our article on action A again calls it an instance of "X", without any hedging, because that's what reliable independent sources did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see that it would be ill-advised to rely exclusively on the Russian government, by that logic. But what you seem to say is that Russia-based sources should be disregarded. That troubles me. By that logic, though perhaps I imperfectly understand what you are saying, in the water boarding debate, US-based sources should have played no part. Can you point me to where I am misunderstanding your closing?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said that all sources from Russia or Ukraine should not be considered for the purpose of closing? I didn't and I don't see where he did. I do know that WP:RS strongly prefers sources be independent of the event, so it might be preferable to have sources from say Moldova or Romania than Ukraine or Russia for some facts, and that we have to carefully weigh sources from involved countries, particularly if the sources are not independent from the involved governments, but I don't see anyone saying they have to be flatly excluded from consideration. Obviously they need to be qualified when used in an article, via WP:BIASED. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm asking the closing admin. You are a fine administrator, but you did not close the discussion. As Roberts said to Scalia, let's hear from counsel (or admin, in this case) I will say parenthetically to Moscow and others, that a good procedure to follow might be to discuss at the start of these debates how they shall be closed, and if possible agree on an administrator, or three, to do the closing. Between the Crimea discussion you closed, Dennis, and this one, this issue is spending too much time at AN/I, and I'd like to see that end.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever say anything about wholesale discounting of published opinions based on their country of provenance? What counts is not what country an opinion comes from, but to what extent it is politically independent of the acting party, or can be seen to be evidently motivated by political expediency in defending (or attacking) action A. The USA are known for having an exceptional degree of internal pluralism in their published political discourse, and in the waterboarding case most of the public debate was done by commenters from within the country, many of whom could be assumed to be quite free from political pressures of the government in question. The same can hardly be said about published disourse in Russia today, I dare say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wish I had your confidence on both those points. I can't be bothered to spend more time on this. I would urge the admins who have been closing these matters, and others who are minded to deal with these matters, to act in a way that inspires confidence in the outcome. These closes have not been controversial because of the answer, they are controversial because what was said by the closing admin, or what he did, which undermines the very solid work that I do not doubt went into each close. In other words, I can hear all the noise way up in my ivory tower. I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: While I admitt that you didn't said that, some are, in fact, constantly denying Russian sources on various grounds (WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and even WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE), that conflict applies even to Russian legislation (which is denied at all these grounds, one or another) and often leads to what I would call edit warfare. So there is a big issue/controversy about constant removal/addition of these sources, issue which has to be taken into account. Seryo93 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree with this editor on some points, in that we must hold to NPOV and take into account both sides of the equation, I think that he has been conducting both tendencious and disruptive edits. Instead of trying to balance out the situation, it often appears that he attempts to inject pro-Russian material into articles which isn't appropriate. He has made repeated comments as such, such as this one. Given that Wikipedia is not meant to right great wrongs, as said above, I'm very concerned about the behaviour of this editor. He has even gone to the length of establishing a POV fork at 2014 East Ukraine crisis that duplicates the existing 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, all for the purpose of skirting around other editors who have consistently resisted his attempts at pushing a certain POV. I'm not sure if he has a conflict of interest, but I recommend that he remember to strive for NPOV, and not to get personally invested in the articles he is editing. I hope that administrators involved here will make that clear. RGloucester — ☎ 16:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: While I don't see a problem with the term "annexation", there is serious POV pushing--on all the related articles--favoring the Ukraine/West POV and denigrating almost anything negative about the actions of the Ukraine/West while emphasizing almost anything negative about the actions of Russia and denigrating anything with a positive opinion on the actions of Russia. It's hardly worth the trouble, unless you have nothing but time on your hands...—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There has been severe POV pushing on both sides, not just one. We've had a flood of pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia single purpose accounts, socks and what have you. It isn't limited to any one side, but I don't think anyone can really see past their own biases in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Stephanie Adams

I request remove (Category:American metaphysics writers) Stephanie Adams article because the girl is a model and not a philosopher who writes about metaphysics. Thanks--Alexis0112 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So all you need to do is go and discuss this at the talkpage of the Stephanie Adams article. Once you have consensus to remove it after a few days, you'll have no problem. Cheers ES&L 11:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alexis0112: Can you explain why you're systematically blanking a category from a large number of articles with no explanation? It's possible you're right to do so, but you appear to have joined Wikipedia and immediately set off, without any effort to justify why, to remove this category. If this is your first time on Wikipedia, that's a potentially problematic place/way to start. What's going on? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the categories because not correspond to the items, because all these people have no connection with metaphysics (you can check it yourself), his work focuses on the New Age and esotericism.--Alexis0112 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If there's a category that is suffering large-scale mispopulation, then it probably should be discussed at WP:CFD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Unexplainable non-admin RfC closing and edit warring

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

---

Editor @I JethroBT: has closed an RfC at Talk:List of countries where Arabic is an official language claiming consensus for a certain option despite only a single editor favouring that option while a majority of commenters voted for the status quo. Can we get an actually impartial closer by an actual admin instead? Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The thing about closing RfCs is that they are not a vote, and rather than actually engage with me in discussion about the close, you reverted my close because you decided on your own that it was obviously wrong. I reverted your removal of my close and its consequent changes to the article once , so that this review could happen. That is not edit warring, it's how challenging a close works. Honestly, many participants in this RfC did not offer up particularly substantial arguments on either side. Furthermore, the fact that participants said Yes without elaboration when the question was Should the Palestinian Authority be included among "Sovereign states" or "Partially recognized states"? makes it ambiguous on what they actually support. What was left were the few participants who actually used sources and policy-based arguments to make their case. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The opening post seems to be a very inaccurate description of the discussion. Having reviewed (not easy, as participants have answered "yes" or "no" to a question of "a" or "b"), I counted three editors in favour of "partially recognised" and five in favour of "sovereign state". But even if it had been 1–6, the strength of argument is what matters. Given that "partially recognised" is how we describe Kosovo (e.g. here), I think an appropriate close has been made. Number 57 16:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure your comment here is unrelated to your dislike of me. Please list which editors you are claiming to have been in favour of "partially recognised", you must be counting the two who were engaging in denialism of Palestine. To get 5 for the status quo you must have also incorretly understood Sean.hoyland's position. Sepsis II (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it is too, as I'm not sure how I'd have a dislike for you given that I don't think we've ever interacted until yesterday. But anyway, Precision123, Robert McClenon and Serialjoepsycho all appear to be on the "no"/"partially recognised" side of the debate. If Sean.hoyland was not voting either way, then it would appear that the vote closer than I mentioned before. Number 57 16:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was right then, you are misreading Precision123 and Robert McClenon's denial of Palestine as somehow supporting placing Palestine as partially recognized. Sepsis II (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Precision123's viewpoint is very clear ("For the sake of neutral point of view, the Palestinian Authority will be moved back to partially recognized states"). I'm not sure how this could be misread. Number 57 17:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah fuck it, looks like I'm about to be fucked again by editors with their bureaucracy, handwaving, false claims, poor reading comprehension, socks, false analogies, and sources that engage in demonization and delegitimaztion of Palestine to further such offensive views into wikipedia. Gilabrand had it right, jump from article to article not caring if you're reverted once in a while; trying to show a wikipedian how they are wrong is a waste of time. Sepsis II (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So, Sepsis II, an RfC was closed and you don't like how the closer determined consensus and judged the stronger arguments. But, as we all know, consensus can and does change over time. If I were you, I'd stop contesting this closure and propose another RfC in 6-12 months that has less ambiguous wording so it is clear what editors are voting on. You might see a different result or, at least, end up with more participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In 6-12 months we should have that new crop of students from Haifi who get university credit for spreading hate of Palestine on wikipedia. I'm thinking the three opposers at the current RfA have a stronger argument than the 80 supporting. I think I'll go close it. If you disagree, well they can apply again in 6-12 months. Sepsis II (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

<- I decided not to participate in RfC after my initial comments for reasons unrelated to the issue itself. Now that it's over I'm happy to throw my 2 cents in. If it were up to me I would simply get rid of the existing segregation into 2 sets, "Sovereign states", "Partially recognized and unrecognized states", and have a single list. The article is a list of "countries", and conveniently it doesn't define that term. Despite the fact that Israel and Palestine are both partially/widely recognized states and we only treat one of them as such, they are both countries and treated as such by sources that deal with such things. I don't really care about the outcome of the RfC, but do I favor removing opportunities for the inconsistencies in the way editors think about things, inconsistencies that probably derive from "the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts" to quote Orwell's Notes on Nationalism, to impact on article content and produce conflict. Either way, simply replacing the inaccurate Palestinian Authority with the accurate Palestine was a step forward. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of making that edit tomorrow considering 1RR though I wish the population column auto calculated the total which is currently incorrect. Sepsis II (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: This seems like a reasonable alternative to me compared to the options laid out in the RfC, if not because of avoiding possible inconsistencies, then because the issue of categorizing countries by their sovereignty doesn't seem strictly necessary in this article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You have my axe I mean, I support this solution. I'd considered closing this a while ago, but couldn't find a close that wasn't problematic. This solves it. It's really obvious and I missed it... Hobit (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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

About that interaction ban...

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

---

It does include edits such as this, right? Please make this clear to him. Thanks. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You're seriously opening a new thread on this? Shaddup. No gloating allowed here: we're trying to get him to stick around for the good things he does here. Doc talk 08:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of "gloating", I'm actually quite upset about the whole business. This is exactly the kind of thing the interaction ban is supposed to counteract. Nip it in the bud or he will carry on in the same vein. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Who will? The person you are forbidden from commenting on? Mutual IBAN has just been broken by both parties, I suppose. Doc talk 09:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BANEXMaxBrowne (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

He's been warned. If he violates the IBAN, it's on him. Doc talk 09:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

He shouldn't have made that (part of the) comment, but simply remove his talk page from your watchlist, it will make life a lot easier. Fram (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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